BANISTERIA
A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA
Problema bulenta (Boisduval & LeConte)
The status of the two known Virginia populations of this rare inhabitant
of tidal marshes is discussed on pages 20-22 of this issue
Number 19 ISSN 1066-0712 2002
BANISTERIA
A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA
ISSN 1066-0712
Published by the Virginia Natural History Society
The Virginia Natural History Society (VNHS) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the dissemination of
scientific information on all aspects of natural history in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Membership in VNHS
includes a subscription to Banisteria. Annual dues are $15.00 (per calendar year); library subscriptions to Banisteria
are $30.00. Subscribers/members outside the United States should add $3.00 for additional postage. Checks should be
made payable to the Virginia Natural History Society. Membership dues and inquires should be directed to the
Secretary-Treasurer (address, page 2); correspondence regarding Banisteria to one of the co-editors. Banisteria 1s a
peer-reviewed journal. For additional information regarding the VNHS, including other membership categories,
consult our website at: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/vnhs/
Editorial Staff: Banisteria
Co-editors:
Joseph C. Mitchell, Department of Biology
University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23173
Steven M. Roble, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage, 217 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Associate Editors
Richard L. Hoffman, Virginia Museum of Natural History
Martinsville, Virginia 24112
Alfred G. Wheeler, Jr., Department of Entomology
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634
Thomas F. Wieboldt, Department of Biology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Cover: Rare skipper (Problema bulenta) on swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), photo by Anne C. Chazal.
Inside back cover: Original drawing by John Banister; provided by Joseph and Nesta Ewan.
BANISTERIA
A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA
Number 19, 2002
Table of Contents
Home Range and Movement of the Allegheny Woodrat (Neotoma magister) in Virginia
1 GREG) nrctes Ud Lae 4 [osu Ss] Cama aden duel RM EZ SA ie SEA SURnel IAN, es OEY EVERA CRT <A eMMn 2 1. Pe: 3 SOMO REA oF SEEM RG Berean Cee 3
Spiders of the Family Anyphaenidae in Virginia (Arachnida: Araneida)
RGAE Te OIA Le. cede ccenssvdee- Nos etilon ssnioceeeeeaueeiaautecorsricinen sivecenemvevredtte Suvssbilewansleecipunraunvcdctetese clea ntile a
New Records for Stink Bugs in Virginia (Heteroptera: Scutelleridae, Pentatomidae)
Jig Meine) ceikd med c [iy Gants 10 lew Mame & peel ls Aceh comiR AAR WA eR E IPRs Vaapee SPW eRAE Peel na tech dT Atlas ae SAAR WEES ME o/h cok Ves peer oq EA PRE See 12
Second Update to the Survey of Macrolepidopteran Moths near Vontay, Hanover County, Virginia
USA ATTICA ET Tooke Let I OR Oy en esaaaee eiernssin tema rane saadeenmnseserdinenteyl epterrss etre winner iagrdstacsiey 11 igharnieeemnneereedaccerre 17
Status of the Rare Skipper (Problema bulenta) in Virginia
Anite. Chazal and CHIStopherS, FO BSOI-sossteccssserasaaasaaaacneneneteabessidddsaaanaanterronneuteaaieeendddatasaaancn 20
First Virginia Records for Three Species of Centipeds (Geophilomorpha: Schendylidae)
Richard Le Hociinanr andar Ae Pereira ie casscccanurtesesarcdecuuenenrincceoantunnibesieaas sevenuaderrr obooduaansnnieeseaad dodcuntenneeeaes 23
Shorter Contributions
Spring Dragonfly (Odonata) and Butterfly (Lepidoptera) Fallout at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
|e SGPrU i cb) cs tet oe eel. nol RE RN Me POE Ane Bae AA Ne Aree In 5A RE ER aA ET On A ARE ee RR RT eh en RoR ROE P 26
Records for Winter Scorpionflies in Virginia (Mecoptera: Boreidae)
eee Pe El Viagra eee ohn ne A PL Pees ao een nee re AE lua etl bees eemeceialiiiees caapaaadd tenn 27
Miscellanea
TREROTEST. fo RNa Ti Waal ererinnnndtee et dn eet teres epee TCL eit errrtn ede. Aaa dulun ethic a niit ereseapepatee hehe wish Merry bees 29
SAS AV US) ANGTOA SIU Os NN bc Sar NAN EST del deh AERC 2S NAGA Le AARRERREEMEE Crt eee. TT fae) ARRAS OE PO ON TE Pe SORIA UA Rete BON 31
Virginia Natural History Society
Officers
President
Werner Wieland
Department of Biological Sciences
Mary Washington College
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401-5358
(term expires December, 2002)
Vice President
Barbara J. Abraham
Department of Biological Sciences
Hampton University
Hampton, Virginia 23668
(term expires December, 2002)
Secretary-Treasurer
Anne C. Lund
Department of Biology
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943
(term expires December, 2004)
Councilors
Paul Bedell
10120 Silverleaf Terrace
Richmond, Virginia 23236
(term expires December, 2004)
Joella C. Killian
Department of Biological Sciences
Mary Washington College
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401-5358
(term expires December, 2002)
Thomas J. McAvoy
Department of Entomology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
(term expires December, 2004)
Honorary Councilors
Richard L. Hoffman
Michael Kosztarab
Banisteria, Number 19, 2002
© 2002 by the Virginia Natural History Society
Home Range and Movement of the
Allegheny Woodrat (Neotoma magister) in Virginia
Michael T. Mengak’
Environmental Science Program
Ferrum College
P. O. Box 2383
Ferrum, Virginia 24088
INTRODUCTION
The Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister) meets
the criteria of “species of special concern” in Virginia
as defined in Terwilliger (1991). The woodrat has been
extirpated from New York and Connecticut, is
endangered in New Jersey and Ohio, and is listed as
threatened in Pennsylvania (Handley, 1991:550).
Woodrat populations are generally considered to be
stable in West Virginia and Maryland (Balcom &
Yahner, 1996), but are declining in Virginia (Mengak,
2000). Reasons for the loss of some woodrat
populations and decline in others are unknown.
Numerous investigators have proposed _ several
explanations, including habitat fragmentation,
predation, defoliation of oaks (Quercus spp.) by gypsy
moth (Lymantria dispar), transmission of a parasite
from raccoons (Procyon lotor), forest management
including clearcutting, human disturbance, climate
change, and food shortage possibly due to increased
mast utilization by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) and black bear (Ursus americanus)
(Handley, 1991; McGowen et al., 1994; Balcom &
Yahner, 1996).
Little information is currently available on the home
range or movements of woodrats in the Ridge and
Valley Province of the southern Appalachian
Mountains. This paper reports the results of a short-
term study of woodrat home _ range _ using
radiotelemetry. Movement data based on the capture
and recapture of marked individuals are also presented.
STUDY AREAS
The results presented here are from two sources.
'Present Address: Warnell School of Forest Resources,
University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
Email: mmengak @smokey.forestry.uga.edu
The first is radiotelemetry data collected from collared
woodrats. The study site was located approximately 11
km north of Callaway, Franklin County, Virginia on
State Route 744. The Callaway site is atypical for
woodrat habitat. Typical woodrat habitat consists of
caves, cliffs, boulder fields, talus slopes and rock
outcrops. The second source is from trapping data
collected over 11 years from two sites in Giles and Bath
counties, Virginia.
The Callaway site (37°06’N, 80°02’W) was
privately owned and _ consisted of numerous
anthropogenic structures including, a house foundation
(the house was destroyed by fire several years prior to
this study), an abandoned sawmill with several sawdust
and sawed board piles, two abandoned vehicles, and
two sheds. The area encompassed approximately 2 ha.
The center of the study area was an old field that had
not been grazed or mowed for approximately 4 years.
Vegetation in the field was typical for this area —
blackberry (Rubus spp.), honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), pokeberry (Phytolaca americana), grasses
and numerous annual and perennial species. Along the
edge of the field, vegetation consisted of red and white
oaks (Quercus spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), maple (Acer
spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.), beech
(Fagus spp.) and other species with oaks and pines
most abundant. The area was bordered on the east by a
county maintained dirt road, on the south by a pasture
grazed by dairy cattle, on the west by forest and a small
first-order stream and on the north by forest. Several
occupied houses and barns were within 1.0 km of the
site. The sawmill had been abandoned for over 3 years.
Elevation was 400 m.
The Giles County site (37°22’N, 80°37’W) was
located approximately 15 km west of Mountain Lake.
Elevation was 1300 m with a western exposure. The
site consisted of a long cliff and talus field extending
for over 800 m in a north-south direction. Tree
vegetation varied from mountain ash (Sorbus
4 BANISTERIA
americana), black birch (Betula lenta) and mountain
maple (Acer pennsylvanicum) along the northern end to
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), hickory, and
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) along the southern
end. Understory vegetation included blueberry
(Vaccinium spp.), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia),
greenbrier (Smilax spp.), moss, and ferns and seedlings
of the dominant trees.
The Bath County site (38°10’N, 79°45’W) was
located along an unnamed ephemeral tributary of the
Jackson River approximately 30 km north of Warm
Springs, Virginia. The site was a deep cove with an
eastern exposure. The cove was ringed with cliffs and
caves along the top edge of the ridge. Tree vegetation
consisted of white pine (Pinus strobus), eastern
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), basswood (Tilia
americana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), northern
red oak, and white oak (Q. alba). Understory vegetation
included greenbrier, tree seedlings, mountain laurel,
and numerous perennial herbs. Elevation was 680 m.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
At all three sites, woodrats were live captured using
single-door, collapsible Tomahawk traps (No. 201)
baited with apples. Captured animals were ear-tagged
using No. 1 Monel sequentially numbered ear tags.
Captured animals were weighed, sexed, examined for
general body and reproductive condition, aged based on
weight and pelage condition, and released at the capture
site. Trapping occurred at numerous intervals
throughout the year but the exact frequency varied due
to weather conditions and other factors. Both the Giles
and Bath county sites have been trapped at least 25
times between 1990 and 2000. Traps were placed at
permanently numbered stations. Stations were located
on a base map of each area and both station number and
animal number were recorded at each capture. The
Callaway site was trapped regularly from 1991 to 1993,
sometimes at 2-week intervals but generally once per
month.
Telemetry
Animals at the Callaway sites were fitted with radio
collars placed around the neck and secured with a wire
collar (A. C. Hicks, New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, pers. comm.). The
antenna trailed behind the animal. Hollow Hill Systems,
Ontario, Canada, manufactured the radio collars.
Collars weighed approximately 15 g, radio frequency
was 150 MHz, battery life was estimated at 4-5 months,
and range was estimated at 250-300 m (estimates
provided by manufacturer). Tracking occurred from
No. 19, 2002
January through May 1993. Tracking took place from
0.5 h before sunset to midnight at least twice per week.
Animals were located by determining the direction
from the observer to the animal along the line of the
strongest audible radio signal. Compass bearings were
taken from the telemetry station to the animal.
Telemetry stations were established along the county
road and at several locations within the field. Stations
were surveyed with a tape and compass and located on
a map of the area that included dominant landmarks, the
road, buildings, a power line and intersections of the
road with the power line, stream and driveways.
Telemetry readings were taken once per hour and at
least three readings were taken on each animal per
night. Time between readings on an individual could
be kept to 8 minutes or less because the area was small.
An attempt was made to locate each animal every hour.
Since I was able to get relatively close to where the
animals were located (generally within 30 m), I
assumed signal bounce was not a factor and therefore
no corrections were made to the compass readings.
Readings were plotted on a map of the study area.
Locations were accepted if they formed a triangle and if
each leg of the triangle was 5 m or less in length. The
animal was then assumed to be at the center of that
triangle. A point, representing the animal’s location was
placed on the map and the points were connected using
the Minimum Area Method to determine the home
range. A dot grid was used to determine the area of the
home range for each animal. Home ranges were
determined by month and a home range was calculated
based on all readings taken on an animal during each
month. Monthly home ranges were determined only if
there were a minimum of five acceptable readings for
an animal during the month.
Trapping
Repeated captures of tagged individuals were used
to determine home ranges at the sites in Giles and Bath
counties sites. Only animals caught at a minimum of
three different trap stations and a minimum of 60 days
between first and last capture were used in this analysis.
Home range was determined by plotting all capture
locations on a map of the study area. The outermost
trap stations were connected using the Minimum Area
Method. A dot grid was used to compute home range
size. I also computed a linear measure of movement. I
defined furthest distance moved between locations as
the distance between the two furthest trap stations
where an animal was caught. This was determined by
measuring, on a map of the study area, the straight-line
distance between the most distant stations where the
animal was caught. This measure gives insight into
MENGAK: ALLEGHENY WOODRAT 5
short-term movements of woodrats, presumably while
foraging or seeking mates.
Neither capture records nor telemetry data give a
complete accounting of the area used by woodrat.
However, both methods provide a minimum estimate of
home range size. Since I did not quantify habitat
features, no inferences are made regarding habitat use
versus availability.
All animals used in the analysis are independent of
each other. Mean home range size was compared
between months and between males and females using
a Student’s t-test. Statistical significance was set at
a < 0.05 unless otherwise noted.
RESULTS
Telemetry
From 12 January 1993 to 30 April 1993, five
woodrats (4 females, 1 male) were equipped with radio
transmitters. Two animals were monitored in January,
five in February and March, and three in April and
May. Woodrats at the Calloway sawmill site moved
very little on cold January nights, preferring to remain
in their shed or woodpile. Individuals had very small
home ranges. The individual monthly home range
varied from 0.003 ha to 0.041 ha. Over four months,
the individual composite home range varied from 0.021
ha to 0.105 ha (Table 1). Average home range size for
the four females during the study was 0.179 ha (SE =
0.003 ha).
Movements increased in February perhaps in
relation to the onset of the breeding season. Radio
number 131 was a male who lived most of the winter in
the sawmill and had a home range overlapping three
females (No. 150, No. 89 and ear tag 207). Not
surprising, he had the largest home range in both March
and April and the largest composite home range. He
was radio-tracked beginning in February and was
visually observed (in February) mating with a radio-
collared female over 125 m from the sawmill that was
in his normal home range. His last known location was
a burned house foundation 15 m from the shed housing
female number 70. On 21 May 1993, traps were set at
the location of the strongest radio signal but he was not
captured and his fate is unknown.
One adult female (No. 110) was tracked from
January to March. Near the end of March, I obtained
radiolocations indicating that she moved 150-175 m
north along a small stream. Subsequent tracking lead
me to believe she was not moving. A ground search
located her remains (a tooth, fur, partial tail and radio
collar). Presumably she was killed and eaten by a
predator (owl, fox and feral cats are known to inhabit
the area).
Radio number 150 was a small female (250 g) who
lived all winter near the sawmill under 2-3 woodpiles.
Her composite home range was the second largest
among the four females (Table 1). She remained near
the woodpiles until April when the landowner used a
bulldozer to move the woodpiles. Female 150
temporarily moved to a woodpile 30 m away and just
inside the woodlot that had been selectively logged in
March 1993. Her last radio location was taken in late
May and she had moved at least 0.7 km away, crossing
three small streams and steep hills. Traps were set near
where the radio signal was located but she was never
captured. Her fate was unknown.
Table 1. Calculated monthly home range (hectares) and number of plotted locations (in parenthesis) of five radio-
collared adult Allegheny woodrats in Franklin County, Virginia, 1993.
Animal Number
Month 70(Q) 89(Q) 110(9) 150(Q) 131(d)
January 0.005 ( 9) wt 0.009 (10) es a,
February 0.032 (17) 0.045 (14) 0.015 (7) 0.033 (12) 0.015 (12)
March 0.013 (18) 0.021 (15) 0.003 (12) 0.015 (18) 0.044 (17)
April 0.003 (10) 0.0287 (9) oa" 0.011 ( 8) 0.041 (7)
Composite HR 0.037 (34) 0.069 (29) 0.021 (17) 0.054 (30) 0.105 (29)
' Not collared until late January or early February.
* Lost her collar in early April.
> Round dead in March.
6 BANISTERIA
Three animals remained in May 1993 (radio
numbers 70, 131 and 150) and tracked to determine a
final location before tracking ended and the batteries
expired. Animal 70 had not appeared to move from
under a shed for 3-4 weeks in late-April and early-May
and was presumed to have died. A large ear-tagged
male (410 g, tag 222/238) was caught five times in the
shed where female 70 lived all winter.
Trapping — Giles County
Ten individuals were caught at least three times but
at only two stations and could not be included in the
home range analysis. Nineteen individuals were caught
at least three times and at a minimum of three stations
over the 11-year study. Ten were females and nine
were males. The age (at first capture) distribution was:
females-5 adults, 2 juveniles, and 3 subadults; males —
8 adults and 1 juvenile. All age categories were
combined within gender for the analysis.
Mean number of captures was 9.1 and 6.2 times for
females and males, respectively (Table 2). The longest
distance moved between any two trap stations was by a
female (No. 334) and covered a distance of 340 m.
This movement occurred between two capture events
only 66 days apart. In contrast, another adult female
was trapped 11 times over nearly four years (Mengak
1997). Her greatest linear movement between any two
captures was only 50 m but the captures were 457 days
apart (8 July 1994 and 15 October 1995). The longest
distance between any two captures was 340 m and 310
m for females and males, respectively.
Average distance between the furthest two capture
locations was 169.7 m (SD = 108.3 m) and 190.6 m
(SD = 92.3 m) for females and males, respectively.
The difference was not significant (t = -0.440, df = 17,
P < 0.05)
No. 19, 2002
Home range size based on trapping observations
was 0.189 ha (SD = 0.136 ha) for females and 0.234 ha
(SE = 0.202 ha) for males. The difference was not
statistically different (t = -0.546, df = 12, P < 0.05).
Trapping — Bath County
Thirteen individuals were caught three or more
times but only at two trap stations and were excluded
from further analysis. Nineteen individuals were used
in the analysis — 14 females and 5 males. The age
distribution (at first capture) for females was: 6 adults,
5 juveniles, and 3 subadults. The age distribution for
males was | adult, 2 juveniles, and 2 subadults. Once
again, all age categories were combined for analysis.
The longest distance between any two captures was
245 m and 180 m for females and males, respectively.
The average distance between the furthest two capture
locations was 102.1 m (SD = 68.8 m) and 104.0 m (SD
= 68.1 m) for females and males, respectively. The
difference was not significant (t = 0.012, df = 16,
P < 0.01).
Home range size based on trapping observations
was 0.068 ha (SD = 0.084 ha) for females and 0.063 ha
(SE = 0.049 ha) for males. The difference was not
statistically different (t = 0.134, df =16, P < 0.05).
DISCUSSION
Telemetry and trapping provided insights into the
behavior of individual woodrats. At the Callaway site,
the relationship between female 110 (collared) and
female 209 (uncollared) is particularly interesting.
Female 209 inhabited an abandoned car and shed in
March/April 1992. Her last capture was on 23 April
1992. Female 110 was first caught near the abandoned
car in September 1992 and repeatedly caught in the car
Table 2. Summary of measures (mean and standard deviation) used to assess movement of Allegheny woodrats in
Virginia based on capture and recapture records, 1990-2000.
Mean Mean
Number of Number of Home
Individuals Captures Range (ha)
Giles County
Females 10 9.1 (2.6) 0.189 (0.136)
Males 9 6.2 (3.2) 0.234 (0.202)
Bath County
Females 14 10.4 (5.1) 0.068 (0.085)
Males ) 8.5 (4.1) 0.063 (0.049)
Longest distance
moved between
any 2 captures (m)
Days between
first and
last capture
169.7 (108.3) 596.6 (285.6)
190.6 (92.3) 512.1 (383.9)
102.2 (68.8) 429.5 (283.6)
104.0 (68.1) 312.8 (199.1)
MENGAK: ALLEGHENY WOODRAT vi
and shed through March 1993. Upon the death of
animal 110 in late March, female 209 was again caught
in the shed within 10 days of telemetry indicating that
No. 110 had moved upslope along the stream to the site
where she was found dead. It is assumed that 110
displaced 209 and occupied the area until her death.
Woodrat 209 probably existed in the woods and brush
piles near the car and shed but was never captured again
until 110 was removed from the area. This raises
questions concerning the apparent disappearance from
the trappable population of other woodrats and leads me
to suspect that displaced animals may exist on the
fringe of the trap area.
Both eastern (N. floridana) and Allegheny woodrats
are known to cache food items in autumn for
overwinter use (Poole, 1940; Fitch & Rainey, 1956).
Large food caches were obvious in several of the
buildings known to house radio-collared individuals.
Cached food items comprise the primary food supply
during winter (Castleberry, 2000a) but limited foraging
occurs presumably during periods of favorable weather.
Caching allows access to food throughout the winter
with minimal exposure to harsh weather or predators.
The availability of cached foods helps explain the small
home range size as determined by telemetry at the
Callaway site.
Movements based on trapping records showed little
pattern. Some animals made long movements, others
moved very little. Sometimes the maximum movement
occurred over a relatively short time interval. At other
times, the animal was caught several times over many
months but always at about the same trap station. Of
course, there is no way to know the movements of the
animals between trapping events. The data presented
here suggest that, over time, most woodrats move
relatively little. They may move larger distances but
they seem to return to a “central” location where they
are most often trapped.
Although males seem more likely to move longer
distances over the total number of capture events, there
is very little difference between males and females
when considering distance moved between any two
consecutive dates. This could mean that both males and
females make considerable exploratory movements for
feeding or breeding but males may travel further than
females. This observation may receive support from the
home range data on radio-collared woodrats, but only
one male was radio tracked so the data are clearly
incomplete at this time.
Zuck (Department of Forestry, West Virginia
University, pers. comm.) used radio telemetry to assess
juvenile dispersal of woodrats in West Virginia.
During 1999-2000, they did not observe any juvenile
dispersal. However, an ear-tagged male was recaptured
approximately 2 km from his original capture site and
other individuals were reported to have made
movements > 400 m for their original capture location
(range 500-2500 m). Castleberry et al. (2001) estimated
spring and summer home range size of 34 radio-
collared Allegheny woodrats as 6.5 ha and 2.2 ha for
males and females, respectively. Castleberry et al.
(2001) studied movements in relation to timber
management and found that home range varied within
timber harvest treatment from 1998 to 1999. For
example, in clearcut areas, home range was 6.0 ha and
2.2 ha for all individuals in 1998 and 1999,
respectively. Other treatments showed — similar
differences between the two years. Maximum nightly
distance moved from the den during foraging forays
ranged from 134.5 m to 186.4 m. These distances are
similar to the trapping results in my study.
Castleberry et al. (2001) pointed out that their home
range results are larger than any reported for most other
Neotoma species. They suggested that home ranges are
generally larger in spring and summer when the animals
are actively foraging and seeking mates. Mengak
(2002) found that most woodrat reproduction occurs in
March-May in Virginia. Castleberry (2000b) failed to
detect any influence of moon phase or illumination on
the activity patterns of woodrats in his study.
Castleberry et al. (2001) found that woodrats used
forest and clearcut areas in proportion to their
availability.
In my study, the Bath County site consisted of intact
forest but the Giles County site had intact forest, open
talus with no overstory and edge habitat along a field
border. The juxtaposition of various habitat types
(including the old field at the Callaway site) does not
seem to negatively affect patterns of woodrat
movements. Woodrats were caught in traps in the old
field and in the open talus field, as well as under the
forest canopy. Timber type, harvest activity, or edges
do not seem to inhibit woodrat movements nor exclude
woodrats from an area. Other environmental factors,
such as food supply and competition, predation or
disease, may have a greater impact on woodrat
distribution, habitat occupancy, and colony persistence
than human activity.
In conclusion, Allegheny woodrats in this study
have small winter home ranges as determined by
telemetry. Trapping results, though providing a small
sample, seem to confirm that at my study sites across
multiple years, individual resident woodrats are
generally caught within a small area of the larger
habitat. Because of the multiple years covered by this
study, no information is available on home range
overlap or territorial behavior. Small home ranges and
the isolated nature of suitable woodrat habitat make this
8 BANISTERIA
species very vulnerable to local extinctions. Issues
related to recolonization of extirpated habitat and
juvenile dispersal (and gene flow) remain unanswered
but vital to a thorough understanding of woodrat
ecology in Virginia and throughout the range.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Fieldwork for this project was supported by the
Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration
Project-WE99R and the Virginia Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) Nongame Program,
USFS George Washington/Jefferson National Forests
(USFS GW/Jeff) and Ferrum College Life Science
Division. S. Griep (USFS GW/Jeff) and R. Reynolds
(VDGIF) provided funding, logistical support, and
many helpful comments on this project. Funds for data
analysis and manuscript preparation were provided by a
summer fellowship from the Appalachian College
Association. Numerous students in the Environmental
Science Program at Ferrum College assisted with
fieldwork throughout the study.
LITERATURE CITED
Balcom, B. J. & R. H. Yahner. 1996. Microhabitat and
landscape characteristics associated with the threatened
Allegheny woodrat. Conservation Biology 10: 515-
D205;
Castleberry, N. L. 2000a. Food habits of the Allegheny
woodrat (Neotoma magister). M.S. Thesis, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. 98 pp.
Castleberry, S. B. 2000b. Conservation and
management of the Allegheny woodrat in the Central
Appalachians. Ph.D. Dissertation, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, WV. 166 pp.
Castleberry, S. B., W. M. Ford, P. B. Wood, N. L.
Castleberry, & M. T. Mengak. 2001. Movements of
No. 19, 2002
Allegheny woodrats in relation to timber harvesting.
Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 148-156.
Fitch, H. S., & D. G. Rainey. 1956. Ecological
observations on the woodrat, Neotoma_floridana.
University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural
History 8: 499-533.
Handley, C. O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pp. 539-616 In
K. Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia’s Endangered
Species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing
Company, Blacksburg, VA. 672 pp.
McGowan, E. M., A. C. Hicks, & W. B. Stone. 1994.
Evidence implicating Baylisascaris procyonis in the
extirpation of the Allegheny woodrat from New York
State. Proceedings of The Wildlife Society, First
Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM. (Abstract).
Mengak, M. T. 1997. New field records for longevity
in Allegheny woodrats (Neotoma magister). Banisteria
10: 27-28.
Mengak, M. T. 2000. Status and distribution of the
Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister) in Virginia.
56" Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference,
Charleston, WV. (Abstract).
Mengak, M. T. 2002. Reproduction, juvenile growth
and recapture rates of Allegheny woodrats (Neotoma
magister) in Virginia. American Midland Naturalist
148: in press.
Poole, E. L. 1940. A life history sketch of the
Allegheny woodrat. Journal of Mammalogy 21: 249-
270.
Terwilliger, K. 1991. Introduction. Pp. 3-7 In
K. Terwilliger (coordinator) Virginia’s Endangered
Species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing
Company, Blacksburg, VA. 672 pp.
Banisteria, Number 19, 2002
© 2002 by the Virginia Natural History Society
Spiders of the Family Anyphaenidae in Virginia
(Arachnida: Araneida)
Richard L. Hoffman
Virginia Museum of Natural History
Martinsville, Virginia 24112
Anyphaenids (which have no “common” name)
are small, pallid, ground-dwelling spiders, generally
widespread in distribution but infrequently collected
either by hand or with pitfall traps. North American
species of the family were revised about three decades
ago (Platnick, 1974), so that accurate identifications can
be made with some confidence. A better knowledge of
the family in different parts of its range now awaits only
the accretion of relevant study material.
Examination of the distribution maps in Dr. Platnick's
monograph suggests that 11 species should occur in
Virginia, and intensive collecting activity during the past
decade by personnel of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History (VMNH) and the Division of Natural Heritage,
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
(VDNH), has secured identifiable specimens of all but
one of them. The northernmost locality of the fugitive
species, Hibana velox, is in north central North Carolina,
and the spider almost certainly occurs in southside
Virginia. However, the surprising discovery of Hibana
cambridgei in Virginia opens the possibility that any or all
of the several anyphaenids known only from Florida, for
instance, might also be found here.
Since most of our species are known from only a few
captures (the one most frequently taken is known from
only 12 sites), it will obviously be a long time before we
can claim an even superficial knowledge of temporal and
spatial distributions of these little spiders in Virginia.
However, the data at hand suggest that several species
occur statewide, and some may be restricted to the Coastal
Plain. So far no species seem to be endemic to the western
mountainous parts of the state, and none have been taken
in the Mount Rogers-Whitetop region despite fairly
prolonged trapping in a variety of habitats.
Even the limited material at hand suggests an
interesting biological situation that invites more intentive
investigation: the sequential - nearly exclusive - periods of
surface activity by adults of the local sympatric species of
Anyphaena. Anyphaena celer and A. maculata are Fall-
Winter species, A. fraterna is most frequently trapped in
May and June, and A. pectorosa is active almost
exclusively in July. Perhaps such seasonal displacement
enhances reproductive isolation, or is useful in resource-
sharing. The very limited data suggest that the two local
species of Wulfila may likewise be separated temporally.
The ready availability of Platnick’s monograph
obviates the need for maps and illustrations. Users of this
reference are reminded that many Nearctic species
traditionally referred to the genus, Aysha have been
relocated into the new genus Hibana (Brescovit, 1991)
and the name Wulfila alba was replaced by W. albens
(Platnick, 1997). Otherwise the nomenclature remains
stable.
ANNOTATED LIST
Collections not otherwise credited were made by
VMNH personnel either as individuals or as part of
organized sampling programs.
1. Anyphaena celer Hentz New state record
The range of this species is general over eastern
United States, from Massachusetts and Michigan south to
Florida, Texas, and Missouri, with the majority of
recorded localities clustered toward the north. No
Virginia material was available to Platnick (1974: map
1), but our records suggest the species occurs statewide.
Clarke Co.: Blandy Farm, ca. 3 km S Boyce,
24 August 1991, ex Malaise trap, D. R. Smith (1 CO).
Henry Co.: Martinsville, inside VMNH building, sticky
trap, January 1995 (1 0’). Mecklenburg Co.: Elm Hill
WMA, DF site in mixed woods near Kerr Dam
powerhouse, 15 March-3 April 1991 (1 ©’); same locality
but open field DF site by Lake Gaston, 24 February-
3 April 1996 (4 GC’). Nelson Co.: The Priest, 3900 ft.,
ca. 4.5 mi. SE Montebello, 23 November-12 December
1991, pitfall trap (1 &). Pittsylvania Co.: DF site ca. 3
miles ENE Axton, 29 February-29 March 1992 (numerous
OC).
10 BANISTERIA
Apparently this species is psychrophilic, with the
collection dates falling between late August and early
April. The only two series were both taken in March.
2. Anyphaena fraterna (Banks) New state record
This species is generally distributed over much of
eastern North America: east of the Great Plains and south
of glaciated regions, although unknown in peninsular
Florida. It is probably statewide in Virginia at lower
elevations, although most records are from east of the
Blue Ridge.
VMNH samples are from: Chesterfield Co.: Scotford
Road, 1.2 km SE ject. Va. Rt. 175 and County Rt. 679,
May 1994, S. M. Roble (1 G). Essex Co.: 1 mi. S
Dunnsville, ex Malaise trap, 4-14 May 1993, D. R. Smith
(several OC’ and QQ). Henrico Co.: west Richmond,
Derbyshire Road, June 1996, W. H. Mitchell (1 &). Henry
Co.: Martinsville, inside VMNH building, 4 May 1994,
C. R. Carter (1 &). King George Co.: Naval Weapons
Laboratory, Dahlgren, 26 June 1991, K. A. Buhlmann,
VDNH (1 @). Roanoke Co.: Back Creek District, Bandy
Road, 9 May 1995, M. W. Donahue (1 @). Stafford Co.:
Quantico Marine Corps Base, Beaver Run, N of Camp
Barrett, 11 May 1999, A. C. Chazal, VDNH (1 &). York
Co.: Grafton Ponds, 1 May 1990, K. A. Buhlmann,
VDNH (1 ©). City of Virginia Beach: Seashore State
Park, 1 May 1989 (1 &), 26 July 1989 (19), both K. A.
Buhlmann, VDNH.
Surface activity, at least by males, is almost entirely
in May, with only a few June captures.
3. Anyphaena maculata (Banks) New state record
Published records suggest a predominantly lowland
range from Long Island to Louisiana and Arkansas, witha
small - perhaps disjunct - contingent in the southern
Appalachians. Our two localities in eastern Virginia are
consistent with this generalization.
Chesterfield Co.: Scotford Road, 1.2 km SE jct Va.
Rt. 175 and County Rt. 679, 6 March 1994, S. M. Roble
(1 &). Greensville Co.: 1 mi. E Claresville at end of Rt.
600, 12 November 1993-25 January 1994 (1 C).
The specimen from Chesterfield County is a little
atypical in that the median apophysis of the male palpal
organ is substantially broader than shown for the species
in Platnick’s revision (1974: Fig. 2), as well as more
spatulate apically and not extended into a curved tip. In
other respects there is such overall agreement that this
departure is considered to be within the normal range of
variation.
No. 19, 2002
4. Anyphaena pectorosa L. Koch
This spider is generally distributed in eastern United
States: New York to Michigan, south to Florida and
Texas.
The species description in Platnick (1974: 232) is
based on a specimen from Fairfax County, and A.
pectorosa has been recorded from alfalfa fields in
Montgomery County by Howell & Pienkowski (1971).
VMNH material is from: Essex Co: 1.5 km SE
Dunnsville, ex Malaise trap, 2 July and 12 July 1991,
D. R. Smith (5 OO", 2 QQ). Greensville Co.: 1 mi. E
Claresville, end of Rt. 666, 30 June-15 July 1994 (1 0’).
Mecklenburg Co.: 2 mi. SE Boydton, 25 June 1990, J.C.
Mitchell (1 &). Pulaski Co.: Dublin, fen site at Radford
Army Ammunition Plant, 2 July 1999, S. M. Roble et al.
VDNH (1 O).
Capture records, all between mid-June and mid-July,
suggest a fairly narrow season of surface activity for
adults of this species, contrasting with the generally much
earlier season for A. fraterna.
5. Hibana cambridgei (Bryant) New state record
As depicted by Platnick (1974: map 4), this species
ranges from the southern Mexican Plateau north as far as
Missouri and Alabama. The discovery of H. cambridgei
in Virginia constitutes a northeastward extension of about
550 mi/880 km from the location plotted in northern
Alabama.
King George Co.: Naval Weapons Laboratory,
Dahlgren, swale pitfall site, 26 June 1991, K. A.
Buhlmann, VDNH (1 ©@).
The male palpal organ of this specimen matches
Platnick’s illustration (Fig. 120) to the finest detail; there
can be no doubt of the identification. The spider is,
however, substantially larger than the individual which he
described: total length ca. 8 mm, carapace length 3.2 mm.
(vs. 5.9 and 2.4 mm, respectively).
Is the Dahlgren population native to Virginia? If so,
it is either naturally disjunct from the main body of the
range, or simply occupies a biotope neglected during most
sampling work and thus likely to be found in the
intervening area. The possibility suggests itself, however,
that chance introduction by “military commerce” cannot
be discounted. The possibly analogous situation involving
a minute lygaeid bug, Botocudo modestus, may be
relevant. This insect was known only west of the
Mississippi River prior to its recent discovery at Wallops
Island, Accomack Co., Virginia (Hoffman, 1999); this
locality is occupied by a quasimilitary federal installation.
HOFFMAN: SPIDERS 11
Botocudo was not recovered in similar habitat with similar
trapping techniques over a period of several months at
Assateague Island, only a few kilometers distant. These
uncertainties would of course be conclusively resolved by
the collection of either species at a Virginia site (or
elsewhere in the central Atlantic states) remote from
possible contamination through commerce between
military bases.
6. Hibana gracilis (Hentz)
This spider occupies an extensive geographic range,
from New York and Iowa south to Florida and
southernmost Texas but records are lacking for most of
the Appalachian region. It is the anyphaenid most
frequently collected in Virginia, with specimens at hand
from eight counties and two cities mostly east of the Blue
Ridge. Platnick’s range map (1974, map 4) included
localities in Northampton and Fairfax counties, and
Virginia Beach City.
VMNH material is from: Chesterfield Co.: Scotford
Road, 1.2 km SE jct Va. Rt 175 and County Rt. 679, 22
April 1995, S. M. Roble (2 3:4). Greensville Co.: 2.3 mi.
NE Slates Corner, 18 June 1990, J. C. Mitchell (1 9).
Henry Co.: Martinsville, C. R. Carter (1 3). King George
Co.: Caledon State Park, 7 June 1993, B. J. Abraham
(13). Montgomery Co.: Radford, around dwelling, Fall
1990 (1 @). Pittsylvania Co.: Chatham, 11 March 1999
(1 2). Roanoke Co.: Salem, Green Hill Park, 20 April
1995, M. W. Donahue (1 92); York Co.: Grafton Ponds,
1 May 1990, K. A. Buhlmann, VDNH (1 3). City of
Chesapeake: Fentress Naval Air Station, 6 June 1989,
kK. A. Buhlmann, VDNH (3 ¢), and City of Virginia
Beach: Seashore State Park, 1 May 1989, K. A.
Buhlmann, VDNH (1 3).
The great majority of these spiders were collected
during March, April, and May. Two are from June, and
only one has an ambiguous “Fall” date.
[Hibana velox (Becker) |
A southern species, so far not collected in Virginia
but surely to be expected in the “Southside” counties
being represented on Platnick’s distribution map for
north-central North Carolina (vicinity of Durham?), less
than 35 miles from the state line.
7. Oxysoma cubanum Banks New verified state record
This southern species ranges as far northward as New
Jersey, and presumably occurs throughout the Coastal
Plain and outer Piedmont in Virginia, although there are
only two authentic records:
Louisa Co.: 4 mi. S Cuckoo, ex Malaise trap, 28
April-4 May 1986 (2 33); 18-27 May 1986 (1 3,2 29),
both D. R. Smith. City of Virginia Beach: Oceana Naval
Air Station, 3 May 1989, K. A. Buhlmann, VDNH (1 <);
Sandbridge, 11 September 1993, B. J. Abraham (1 Q).
The published record for alfalfa fields at Blacksburg,
Virginia (Howell & Pienkowski, 1971) seems
geographically implausible, and the original material
cannot be located for verification.
8. Teudis mordax (O. P.-Cambridge) New state record
Already documented for North Carolina and the
District of Columbia by Platnick (1974), this species
could safely be assumed to reside in Virginia east of the
Blue Ridge generally. However, so far we have records
only for two Coastal Plain sites:
Essex Co.: 1.5 km SE Dunnsville, ex Malaise trap,
2 July 1991, D. R. Smith (1 3). City of Suffolk: Great
Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, 30 June 1993,
B. J. Abraham (1 @).
9. Wulfila albens (Hentz) New state record
Although W. albens occurs from Maryland to Florida
and Texas, there are apparently no published records for
the species in Virginia.
We have only two specimens from the state:
Cumberland Co.: 5.5 km SSW Columbia, DF site in pine
woods, 2 September 1990 (1 2); 7 km SSW Columbia,
DF site in mixed hardwood forest, 1 August 1990 (1 )
(both J. C. Mitchell). On the basis of records in nearby
states, W. albens should be essentially statewide in
Virginia, at least at lower elevations.
10. Wulfila saltabunda (Hentz)
One of the most widely distributed of Nearctic
anyphaenids, W. saltabunda occurs from Nova Scotia to
Florida, westward to Minnesota, Iowa, and Texas. Its
presence in Virginia is attested solely by a record for
Virginia Beach City, plotted on Map 3 in Platnick’s 1974
revision, and capture in alfalfa fields at Blacksburg,
Montgomery County (Howell & Pienkowski, 1971).
Presumably it should be found statewide.
Louisa Co.: 4 mi. S of Cuckoo, ex Malaise trap, 6-13
June 1986, D. R. Smith (2 3). Patrick Co.: roadside on
Rte. 669, 3 mi. SW Ararat, sweeping Ceanothus, 27 June
1992 (1 2).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The material accumulated during VDNH surveys was
donated to VMNH by staff zoologists Christopher A.
Pague and Steven M. Roble. Appreciation is also
12 BANISTERIA
expressed to Dr. Roble, and to Joseph C. and Wendy H.
Mitchell, David R. Smith, Barbara J. Abraham, and
Michael W. Donahue for the gift of specimens generated
during their personal collecting activities.
LITERATURE CITED
Brescovit, A.D. 1991. Hibana, novo género de aranhas
da familia Anyphaenidae (Arachnida, Araneae). Revista
Brasileira de Entomologia 35: 729-744.
Hoffman, R. L. 1999. Six species of bugs new to the
Virginia list (Heteroptera: Coreidae, Lygaeidae,
Banisteria, Number 19, 2002
© 2002 by the Virginia Natural History Society
No. 19, 2002
Phymatidae, Miridae). Banisteria 14: 24-28.
Howell, J. O., & R. Pienkowski. 1971. Spider populations
in alfalfa, with notes on spider prey and effect of harvest.
Journal of Economic Entomology 64: 163-168.
Platnick, N. I. 1974. The spider family Anyphaenidae in
America north of Mexico. Bulletin of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology 146: 205-266.
Platnick, N. I. 1997. Advances In Spider Taxonomy
1992-1995. New York Entomological Society. 976 pp.
New Records for Stink Bugs in Virginia
(Heteroptera: Scutelleridae, Pentatomidae)
Richard L. Hoffman
Virginia Museum of Natural History
Martinsville, Virginia 24112
Three decades have passed since publication of my
survey (1971) of the pentatomoid Heteroptera in “The
Insects of Virginia” series, during which time our
knowledge of these insects has been substantially
increased. Six species were added to the state list, and a
number of recent name changes noted some years ago
(Hoffman, 1994); it is now desirable to present a sequel
that adds still another pentatomid to our fauna and
provides significant distributional records for several
others.
The occasion is taken to offer a key to the Virginia
genera of the subfamily Asopinae, not recognized in my
1971 treatment, and another to our species of Podisus
which accommodates the additional member of this genus
here documented as native to the state.
Unless otherwise specified, the material mentioned
herein is located in the Virginia Museum of Natural
History (VMNH), which is under ongoing obligation to
the staff of the Division of Natural Heritage, Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, for donation
- through the interest of Steven M. Roble - of valuable
material obtained during its inventory activities around
the state. The classification and nomenclature follows that
of Froeschner (1988), except as specifically noted.
FAMILY SCUTELLERIDAE
Camirus porosus (Germar)
Although this northern member of a mostly
Neotropical genus is virtually continent-wide in North
America, actual capture records are rare and only a few
states can claim C. porosus as a native resident. A
collection from beach drift at Virginia Beach (Jones,
1935) provided the northernmost locality in eastern
United States, and this tenuous evidence has to my
knowledge never subsequently been verified. There is
always some ambiguity about the origin of any beach drift
finds, there being usually no way to know from what
locality a specimen actually entered the water.
HOFFMAN: STINK BUGS 13
It is now possible to document an unequivocal
Virginia locality for this very rare species: Nottoway Co.:
Fort Pickett Military Reservation, 1.6 mi. E jct. Wilcox
and Range roads, 7 July 1999, Anne C. Chazal and Amber
K. Foster, VDNH survey (1). In addition to providing the
new northernmost known locality for C. porosus, this site
is of interest for its inland position on the Virginia
Piedmont rather than in the Coastal Plain as might have
been expected.
At first glance, C. porosus bears a considerable
resemblance in size, shape, and coloration to species of
the genus Galgupha, except that the integument is matte
instead of shiny. A good dorsal habitus illustration was
published by Froeschner (1988), but it does not indicate
the coarse, dense punctation of the entire body. As seen
with magnification, the bug has an unprepossessing facies
with its dull black coloration, small eyes, and large,
declivous head which is retracted up to the eyes in the
prothorax (Figs. 1A, 1B). An interesting feature is the
accommodation of the long antennae in the deep, narrow,
prothoracic rostral groove from which, in the preserved
specimen, they had to be extracted with a fine needle.
This groove, formed by the laminate expansion of the
front edge of the propleura (Fig. 1B, ppf), becomes so
constricted between the procoxae that the corresponding
segment of the rostrum is notably narrowed in order to fit
into the narrow sinus.
I am unaware of any illustration of the forewing for
this species and provide a sketch (Fig. 1C) that shows the
reduced venation and distribution of color. The striking
white costal region is not mentioned in descriptions
available to me, and in fact is invisible when the wings
are withdrawn beneath the scutellum.
As in related scutellerid genera, Camirus has
subquadrate paramedian stridulatory areas on ventral
segments 4 and 5, but they are almost invisible unless the
specimen is turned into the correct inclination vis-d-vis a
light source, when they are seen to consist of prominent
long parallel striae. I could detect no corresponding
plectral surfaces on the inner side of the metafemora aside
from a few random subapical vertical striae which do not
seem correctly placed to rub against the stridulatral
surface.
FAMILY PENTATOMIDAE
Subfamily Pentatominae
Proxys punctulatus (Palisot de Beauvois)
At the time of preparing my 1971 treatment, I had seen
material of this striking black and yellow species only
from a few specimens taken in the cities of Richmond,
Suffolk, Chesapeake, and Norfolk. From these localities
I concluded the species observed the classical “Lower
Fig. 1. Camirus porosus.
A. Outline of body in dorsal aspect; B. Anterolateral aspect of forebody, showing
deep insertion of the head into the prothorax and concealment of antennal socket under propleural flange (ppf);
C. Left forewing. Heavily stippled area is dull black, lightly stippled area is ivory-white, unstippled areas are clear
membrane, the veins are indicated somewhat more evidently than in actuality.
14 BANISTERIA
No. 19, 2002
Fig. 2. Distribution of Proxys punctulatus in Virginia. Previously published records indicated by the plus symbols, new
records by dots. Dashed line approximates the eastern edge of the Fall Line; solid line the eastern edge of the Blue
Ridge.
Austral” distribution and was probably confined to the
Coastal Plain in Virginia. Material subsequently acquired
by VMNH demonstrates a distinctly greater range:
essentially everywhere east of the Blue Ridge. New
localities are in Essex, Greene, Greensville, Halifax,
Henry, Isle of Wight, Nelson, Nottoway, and Roanoke
counties and justify preparation of a new state range map
(Fig. 2) for this species.
The westernmost capture sites correspond closely to a
line drawn along the base of the Blue Ridge: Greene Co.:
Conway River at Va. 230, 23 August 1980, RLH (1).
Nelson Co.: Afton, 21 July 1973, J. Gainer (1). Roanoke
Co.: Roanoke River at crossing of Blue Ridge Parkway,
29 June 1975, S. W. Bullington (1).
Although the species is attracted to UV light,
specimens appear singly or in very small numbers, e.g.,
two from Greensville County on 15 July 1994. We have
three specimens from Essex County taken in extensive
Malaise trapping over a period of several seasons, an
extremely low return considering the total trap effort of
hundreds of hours.
Subfamily Asopinae
My 1971 treatment of Virginia pentatomoids did not
admit this taxon at either the tribal or subfamilial level
despite its treatment as a subfamily by Blatchley (1926)
and other authorities. I herewith atone for that neglect by
recognizing the Asopinae in the sense of Thomas (1992),
who revised the asopine fauna of the Western Hemisphere
and introduced a considerable number of nomenclatorial
changes which I now review in order to update the names
used in my 1971 accounts.
Blatchley (1926: 93) distinguished the Asopinae from
nominate Pentatominae by structure of the bucculae, long
and parallel in the latter, almost entirely enveloping the
slender basal segment of the rostrum, against short and
convergent, enclosing only the basal half of the short,
thick basal rostral segment in asopines. Thomas (1992:
8) was unable to define tribal groups among the 27 New
World genera that he recognized despite a diversity of
structural features. Five of these genera are represented in
the Virginia fauna and can be distinguished as follows:
KEY TO THE VIRGINIA
GENERA OF ASOPINAE
1. Scutellum broad and ovoid, covering inner angles of
hemelytral coria and base of membrane, the apex
broadly rounded.....................0.0.000. 00. Stiretrus
— Scutellum subtriangular. distally acuminate, not
Covering Hemelyiracn....4.heuBein oh aes ia eek ih 2
2. Rostrum very long, extending back to 2™ abdominal
segment; pronotal humeri produced into blunt
digitiform projection; color bluish-black with
pronotum and scutellum variously ornamented
with red markings....................... Euthyrhynchus
— Rostrum shorter, not extending beyond posterior
coxae; humeri, if produced, acute or spinose;
color not dark blue and red.........................2.. 3
HOFFMAN: STINK BUGS 15
3. 4" segment of rostrum about twice as long as 3";
color black and orange......................... Perillus
— 4" segment of rostrum about equal to 3"; color
yellowish to brownish..................0 00000000 eee 4
4. Jugae slightly longer than tylus; body length greater
BUF. 50 Ta OA 10 Net Oe FO <n ON Ue A Ae Apoecilus
— Jugae and tylus equal in length; body less than
(Demin JONG... bss sinds onesie dhax. descivenni py OGISHS
Euthyrhynchus floridanus (Linnaeus)
In 1971 I cited material from Appomattox,
Gloucester, and Southampton counties, and the cities of
Suffolk, Norfolk, and Newport News. Specimens at
VMNH add Isle of Wight County and the cities of
Hampton, Richmond, and Virginia Beach. A specimen
from Kiptopeke State Park, at the southern end of
Northampton County (S.M. Roble, 6 October 1996)
establishes the species on the “Eastern Shore” and one
from Grey’s Point, Middlesex County (J. Carnes, 29
October 1955) extends the Virginia range slightly
northward to the Rappahannock River.
Apoecilus cynicus (Say)
Thomas (1992: 25) elevated Apoecilus from
subgeneric to generic rank, in the process incidentally
removing the generic name Apateticus from the local
fauna. As Apateticus cynicus I reported this large and
conspicuous species from Burkes Garden, Tazewell
County, its only then-known Virginia locality.
Recently collected VMNH specimens now represent
the counties of Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Craig,
and Dickenson, from sites on or west of the Blue Ridge.
Robert Vigneault obtained eight specimens, mostly at
lights, at Breaks Interstate Park, Dickenson County,
during the first two weeks of July 2000.
Podisus brevispinus Thomas
The specific name modestus, by which this insect was
known for many decades, was determined by Thomas
(1992: 93) to have been based upon a specimen of P.
maculiventris (Say), thus requiring the proposal of the
new name brevispinus for the present species. As Podisus
modestus 1 recorded it (1971: 58) from only a few
specimens captured in Montgomery and Grayson
counties. Recently acquired material originated in
Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Dickenson, Floyd, Giles,
Highland, Nelson, Rockingham, Smyth, Tazewell, and
Washington counties, from sites on or west of the Blue
Ridge and nearly all above 3000 ft. elevation.
Podisus placidus Uhler
New state record, new southernmost locality
A boreal species stated by Blatchley to have been
“. not recorded south of New Jersey.” Localities cited
by Froeschner (1988: 556) define a range from Quebec to
Alberta and Utah, again with nothing south of New Jersey
and Ohio. VMNH has a single female collected by
Malaise trap in Clarke Co.: Blandy Experimental Farm, 3
mi. S Boyce (D. R. Smith, 2 July 1991), which adds the
species to to the state list of insects, and constitutes a
considerable southward extension of the known range.
Whether this specimen derived from a native population,
or was introduced via shrubbery (Blandy Farm hosts a
variety of exotic cultivars) remains to be determined by
future collections in Virginia and neighboring states.
The combination of straight pronotal margins,
immaculate legs and membrane, and extensive random
brown blotching of the dorsum readily distinguish this
species from other local members of the genus.
Podisus neglectus (Westwood)
Based on a single female without indication of origin,
this species fell into an obscurity that was a credit to its
name. The type specimen was apparently not restudied by
a pentatomid specialist until Thomas found it in the
British Museum collection and recognized the species as
that described much later as P. fretus (Olsen, 1916) from
specimens taken in Massachusetts. Ranging from Maine
to Florida along the seacoast, with disjunct populations in
the Great Lakes region; the species appears to be
uncommon in Virginia as no specimens have been taken
here since I reported two specimens (USNM) from
Virginia Beach. Since there has been no dearth of
collecting activities in the two “Eastern Shore” counties
and extreme southeastern Virginia by staff of the Division
of Natural Heritage, perhaps some special collecting
techniques are required to obtain specimens of P.
neglectus. That an actual hiatus in the range may occur,
however, is suggested by the apparently analogous case of
another coastal pentatomid, Thyanta custator (Fabricius),
of which no specimens have been taken between New
Jersey and North Carolina.
Podisus serieventris Uhler
Known states of record for this species clearly reflect
a northern, subboreal distribution from Newfoundland to
British Columbia, and southward to North Carolina and
Utah. Curiously, the only Virginia records I could cite in
1971 were for Arlington and Fairfax counties, in the
Piedmont rather than the mountains, an anomaly
paralleled by the localities then known for North Carolina.
16 BANISTERIA
Since 1971, a few captures have been made in the
Virginia mountains: Dickenson Co.: Breaks Interstate
Park, 1-14 July 2000, Robert Vigneault (6), and Highland
Co.: Locust Spring Recreation Area, George Washington
National Forest, 29 April 1972, R. L. and L. S. Hoffman
(1). Collectively, these do not add up to a very adequate
picture of the in-state distribution.
The addition of P. placidus to the state fauna and the
several name changes mentioned above require revision
of the key that I prepared in 1971.
KEY TO THE VIRGINIA
SPECIES OF PODISUS
1. Dorsolateral margin of pronotum straight; legs
and membrane immaculate; dorsum mostly
pale beige mottled with irregular brown
IDLOTCHES Sh mata swgthi a: Rabon Memiel tune hone P. placidus
— Dorsolateral margin of pronotum concave or
indented near midlength; membrane with
median stripe; dorsum colored otherwise............2
2. Legs immaculate yellow; median projection of
2™ ventral segment short, not extending
between metacoxae; body length less than
OPTAIN es chek oPeats We nae eel a ae P. brevispinus
— Legs variously marked with spots or annulations;
median projection of 2" ventral segment longer,
usually extending between bases of metacoxae;
length greater than 10 mm..................... 0.00.02. 3
3. Femora of all legs with two black subapical spots
Be a a cn wre ie ete se ae P. maculiventris
— Femora variously marked but never with two
subapiCal dark: Spots. ins ccoics ceuxleateigs pense ey ese 4
4. Antennae uniformly light reddish-brown;
midventral abdominal spots large (size of an
eye, or larger) and poorly-defined........P. neglectus
— 3™ and 4" antennomeres distinctly darker than basal;
midventral abdominal spots small and sharply
GETING. Wena et AL Pe a nae P. serieventris
SUMMARY
The 84 species of Pentatomoidea now known to
occur in Virginia are distributed among four families as
follows:
No. 19, 2002
Scutelleridae 8
Cydnidae 14
Corimelaenidae 11
Pentatomidae 51
The proximity of capture sites for other species in
adjoining states suggests that this total may increase to
about 90 through continued collecting efforts.
LITERATURE CITED
Blatchley, W. S. 1926. Heteroptera or True Bugs of
Eastern North America, with Especial Reference to the
Faunas of Indiana and Florida. Nature Publishing Co.,
Indianapolis. 1116 pp.
Froeschner, R.C. 1988. Families Pentatomidae (pp. 544-
597) and Scutelleridae (pp. 684-693) In T. J. Henry &
R. C. Froeschner. Catalog of the Heteroptera, or True
Bugs, of Canada and the Continental United States.
E. J. Brill, Leiden and New York. 958 pp.
Hoffman, R. L. 1971. Shield bugs (Hemiptera:
Scutelleroidea: Scutelleridae, Corimelaenidae, Cydnidae,
Pentatomidae). The Insects of Virginia, No. 4. Research
Division Bulletin 67, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg. 61 pp.
Hoffman, R. L. 1994. Additions and corrections to the
Virginia fauna of “True Bugs” (Heteroptera: Cydnidae,
Scutelleridae, Pentatomidae, Alydidae). Banisteria 3: 15-
19.
Jones, M. P. 1935. A peculiar insect situation along a
seashore. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Washington 37: 150-151.
Olsen, C. E. 1916. A new pentatomid. Bulletin of the
Brooklyn Entomological Society 11: 82-83.
Thomas, D. B. 1992. Taxonomic synopsis of the asopine
Pentatomidae (Heteroptera) of the Western Hemisphere.
Thomas Say Foundation Monographs 16: 1-156.
Banisteria, Number 19, 2002
© 2002 by the Virginia Natural History Society
Second Update to the Survey of Macrolepidopteran Moths
Near Vontay, Hanover County, Virginia
J. Christopher Ludwig
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
INTRODUCTION
This paper provides a second update to the list of
macrolepidopteran moth (= “macro-moth” or “macro”
species collected at a site on the Virginia Piedmont,
2 km W of Vontay in western Hanover County.
A description of the study site, methodology, and
original species list were given in Ludwig (2000) and
the first update was provided in Ludwig (2001). The
new collections extend the study to five years (30
October 1996 to 30 October 2001) and increase the
number of collection nights to >470. The species list
from this study, along with others being gathered
throughout Virginia by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Natural
Heritage, is being used to ascertain the biological status
and develop a complete list of the Commonwealth’s
macro-lepidopteran moths.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 82 macroleptidopteran moth specimens
was pinned and identified during the extended study
period, bringing the total number of collected
specimens at this site to 2,170. These collections
increased the number of species documented at this site
from 521 to 530 and the number of genera from 298 to
300 (Table 1 and Appendix). The Noctuidae (310
species) and Geometridae (103) were most diverse with
the Arctiidae (34) and Notodontidae (33) also rich.
An updated species-accumulation curve (Fig. 1) for
this study indicates that additional macros will be
recorded at the site should collections continue.
Depending upon the projected trajectory of the curve,
estimates of the total number of taxa recorded from this
site over 10 years range from 570-680 macro-moth
species, representing perhaps as much as 50% of the
state’s estimated total macro fauna.
Noted as absent from the site’s original collections
(Ludwig, 2000), two Eurasian moth species have now
been recorded at the study site. A single Noctua
pronuba L. was found on 29 May 2000 (Ludwig,
2001), reinforcing its status as a widespread, recent
introduction to Virginia (Roble et al., 1999). A male
gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar L., was found on 3 July
2001, presumably representing the first of many to
inhabit the site as the line of infestation moves south
and east from the northwestern Virginia Piedmont.
Table 1. Summary of macro-moths encountered during
this study by family given in order of Hodges et al.
(1983).
Family Genera Species Specimens
Thyatiridae 2 2 9
Drepanidae 3 eB Ke
Geometridae 69 103 394
Epiplemidae 2 2 5
Mimallonidae 1 1 6
Apatelodidae 2 2 4
Lasiocampidae 4 i) 8
Saturniidae 10 Li 12
Sphingidae 12 18° 33
Notodontidae 18 a8 138
Arctiidae 18 34 94
Lymantriidae ) 6 26
Noctuidae 158 310 1434
TOTALS 300 530 2170
“ Four species documented by sight records only
> One species documented by sight record only
18 BANISTERIA
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Rebecca Wilson assisted with fieldwork.
Manuscript preparation was funded in part by the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Division of Natural Heritage. All specimens are
currently housed in the DNH reference collection.
LITERATURE CITED
Covell, C. V., Jr. 1999. The Butterflies and Moths
(Lepidoptera) of Kentucky: An Annotated Checklist.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission,
Scientific and Technical Series 6. 220 pp.
Hodges, R. W., T. Dominick, D. R. Davis, D. C.
Ferguson, J. G. Franclemont, E. G. Munroe, & J. A.
Powell. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of
America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Ltd. & The
No. 19, 2002
Wedge Entomological Foundation, London. 284 pp.
Ludwig, J. C. 2000. A survey of macrolepidopteran
moths near Vontay, Hanover County, Virginia.
Banisteria 15: 16-35.
Ludwig, J. C. 2001. An update to the survey of
macrolepidopteran moths near Vontay, Hanover
County, Virginia. Banisteria 17: 42-47.
Rings, R.W., E.H. Metzler, F.J. Arnold, & D.H. Harris.
1992. The Owlet Moths of Ohio Order Lepidoptera
Family Noctuidae. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin.
New Series 9 (2). 219 pp.
Roble, S. M., A. C. Chazal, C. S. Hobson, & J. C.
Ludwig. 1999. First records of Noctua pronuba L., an
Old World moth, in Virginia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
Banisteria 14: 45-47.
Appendix. Additional macro-moth species identified during this study given in order of Hodges et al. (1983).
Fields are: checklist number, species name, collection date (month/day/year), method (s=sugar bait, b=black light,
i=incandescent light, m=mercury vapor light); numbers in parentheses indicate if number of specimens is > 1 for a
given date and survey method. Asterisks denote species new for the study.
Drepanidae
6251 Drepana arcuata (W1k.) 04/06/01 m
Geometridae
6258 Alsophila pometaria (Harr.) 02/20/01 1
*6405 Semiothisa gnophosaria (Gn.) 05/25/01 m
6586 Anacamptodes defectaria (Gn.) 04/17/01 m
6662 Paleacrita vernata (Peck) 02/20/01 i
6843 Plagodis fervidaria (H.-S.) 07/08/01 m
6885 Besma quercivoraria (Gn.) 05/02/01 m
6894.x Lambdina athasaria (W1k.) complex
04/17/01 m
7033 Nemoria lixaria (Gn.) 09/25/01 m
7132 Pleuroprucha insularia (Gn.) 09/25/01 i
7196 Eulithis diversilineata (Hbn.) 07/14/01 m
7292 Hydria prunivorata (Fgn.) 06/12/01 m
*7638 Cladara angulineata (Grt.&Rob.) 04/06/01 m
Saturniidae
7765 Callosamia angulifera (W1k.) 06/16/01 m,
07/13/01 m
Sphingidae
*7786 Ceratomia amyntor (Geyer) 07/28/01 m
Notodontidae
*7896 Clostera inclusa (Hbn.) 04/06/01 m
7931 Gluphisia septentrionalis (W1k.) 05/15/01 m
7999 Lochmaeus bilineata (Pack.) 08/13/01 m
Arctiidae
8104 Comachara cadburyi Franc. 05/02/01 m
Lymantriidae
8314 Orgyia definita Pack. 07/06/01 m,
07/28/01 m, 10/06/01 m (2)
*8318 Lymantria dispar (L.) 07/03/01 m
Noctuidae
8338 Phalaenophana pyramusalis (W1k.) 05/25/01 m
8426 Dyspyralis illocata Warr. 06/11/01 m
LUDWIG: VONTAY MOTHS 19
Noctuidae (continued)
8499
8505
8525
8692
*8703
8792
8849
8898
8904
8907
8959
8962
9037
9038
9040
9051
9062
9169
O27 1
9243
9244
9251
O22
Metalectra discalis (Gtt.) 09/10/01 m
Metalectra richardsi Brower 07/12/01 m
Phyprosopus callitrichoides Grt. — 07/24/01 m
Zale galbanata (Mortrr.) 07/24/01 m
Zale duplicata (Bethune) 04/03/01 m
Catolcala vidua (J.E. Sm.) 09/25/01 m
Catocala andromedae Gn. 07/06/01 m
Allagrapha aerea (Hbn.) 07/28/01 m
Chrysanympha formosa (Gtt.) 06/11/01 m
Megalographa biloba (Steph.) 05/15/01 m
Paectes pygmaea (Hbn.) 08/13/01 m
Paectes abrostoloides (Gn.) 10/16/01 1
Hyperstrotia pervetens (B.&McD.) 06/05/01 m
Hyperstrotia villificans (B.&McD.)
05/15/01 m (2)
Hyperstrotia secta (Gtt.) 05/15/01 m
Lithacodia musta (Grt.&Rob.) 06/05/01 m,
08/13/01 m
Cerma cerintha (Tr.) 06/10/01 m
Bagisara rectifascia (Gtt.) 07/04/01 m
Acronicta funeralis (Grt. & Rob.) 06/12/01 m
Acronicta ovata Gtt. 07/28/01 m
Acronicta modica Wk. 05/15/01 m
Acronicta retardata (W1k.) 05/02/01 m
Acronicta oblanita (J.E. Sm.) 06/10/01 m
9427 Meropleon diversicolor (Morr.) — 09/25/01 m
9466 Papaipema cataphracta (Gtt.) 10/03/01 1,
10/16/01 i, 10/20/01 i
9485 Papaipema baptisiae (Bird) 09/18/00 m
9501 Papaipema eupatorii (Lyman) 10/03/01 1
9556 Chytonix palliatricula (Gn.) 05/25/01 m
9688 Galgula partita Gn. 07/01/01 m,
07/04/01 m (2), 07/06/01 m, 07/14/01 m
9892 Lithophane disposita Morr. 10/20/01 1
9961 Anathix ralla (Grt. & Rob.) 09/10/01 m
10021 Copivaleria grotei (Morr.) 04/06/01 m
10304 Trichordestra legitima Gtt. 09/01/01 m
10368 Lacinipolia meditata (Gtt.) 09/20/01 m
10397 Lacinipolia renigera (Steph.) 09/20/01 m
10501 Crocigrapha normani (Gtt.) 04/17/01 m
10502 Himella intractata (Morr.) 04/12/01 m
10518 Achatia distincta Hbn. 04/12/01 m,
05/02/01 m
10521.1 Morrisonia latex (Gn.) 05/02/01 m
10648 Agrotis gladaria Morr. 10/06/01 m
10915 Peridroma saucia (Hbn.) 04/14/01 m
10944 Xestia smithii (Snell.) 09/24/01 m
10998 Choephora fungorum Grt. & Rob. 10/03/01 i
11006 Protolampra brunneicollis (Grt.) 09/25/01 m
11128
11135
09/20/01 m
08/20/01 m
Schinia arcigera (Gn.)
Schinia rivulosa (Gn.)
Figure 1. Species accumulation curve for macrolepidopteran moths encountered during this study.
om
[<b]
= x
sf
os
2s
<6
so
E
(o)
S)
Banisteria, Number 19, 2002
© 2002 by the Virginia Natural History Society
Status of the Rare Skipper (Problema bulenta) in Virginia
Anne C. Chazal and Christopher S. Hobson
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
The life history of the rare skipper (Problema
bulenta) is poorly documented. It is associated with
tidal marshes or upland habitats with abundant nectar
sources in the vicinity of tidal marshes. Larvae are
suspected to feed on giant cordgrass (Spartina
cynosuroides), southern wild rice (Zizaniopsis
miliacea), and wild rice (Zizania aquatica) (Opler &
Krizek, 1984; Cromartie & Schweitzer, 1993;
Glassberg, 1999). Recently, late instar larvae were
found on Phragmites australis in New Jersey (D. F.
Schweitzer, pers. comm.). Despite the widespread
occurrence of apparently suitable habitat, the rare
skipper tends to be highly localized and sporadic in
distribution.
The rare skipper has been documented from seven
states along the Atlantic coast: New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Georgia (Cromartie & Schweitzer, 1993; Opler,
1998). The rare skipper was formerly a candidate
(Category 2) species for listing under the federal
Endangered Species Act, until the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service abolished that category in 1996.
Currently, it receives no legal protection in any of the
states in which it occurs, despite its rarity and patchy
distribution.
The rare skipper has one brood from late-July to
August in the northern portion of its range (Opler &
Krizek, 1984). There are records from May and early
June indicating it 1s double-brooded in the southern
portion of its range (Opler & Krizek, 1984). In Virginia,
Nicolay (1979) proposed that the rare skipper might be
double-brooded, while Opler & Krizek (1984)
suggested that it is single-brooded. All of the Virginia
collections to date are from late-July and August;
however, extensive survey efforts have not been
conducted earlier in the year.
In Virginia, J. Bauer and B. Dixon first collected P.
bulenta on 21 August 1967 (Covell & Straley, 1973).
The location was reported as 2.0 miles (3.2 km) south
of Lanexa, New Kent County. The area consists of
tidal marshes along the Chickahominy River near its
confluence with Diascund Creek (Nicolay, 1979;
Pague, 1991; Hobson, pers. obs.). R. Anderson, S.
Nicolay, C. Covell, and G. Straley collected P. bulenta
from the flowers of swamp milkweed (Asclepias
incarnata) at this location in August 1970 (Covell &
Straley, 1973). Anderson and Nicolay captured it again
in August of 1971, but efforts by Anderson in mid-July
1971 were unsuccessful (Covell & Straley, 1973).
C. S. Hobson and S. M. Roble reverified this
population on 23 August 1999, when they observed
nine adults at two marshes upstream of the mouth of
Diascund Creek. Eight of the individuals were seen
nectaring on pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) about
1-1.75 km upstream of the mouth of Diascund Creek in
New Kent County. One individual was on swamp
milkweed approximately 6 river km upstream of the
mouth of Diascund Creek, Charles City County (new
county record). A survey conducted at these sites on 31
August 1999 did not find any P. bulenta, however
weather conditions were less than favorable.
Associated butterflies and skippers at these capture
sites included broad-winged skipper (Poanes viator),
orange sulphur (Colias eurytheme), palamedes
swallowtail (Papilio palamedes), red admiral (Vanessa
atalanta), fiery skipper (Hylephila phyleus), spicebush
swallowtail (Papilio troilus), tiger swallowtail (Papilio
glaucus), and monarch (Danaus plexippus).
Vegetation at the capture sites 1s characterized by
dense stands of southern wild rice mixed with wild rice,
pickerelweed, arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), and
two species of mallows (Hibiscus moscheutos,
Kosteletzkya virginica). Giant cordgrass was not
observed in the vicinity of the captures, but was found
in small patches within three miles downstream of
Diascund Creek. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) is
prevalent along the floodplain in the vicinity of the
capture sites.
Additional surveys of other tidal marshes in
Virginia in 1999 failed to document the presence of
CHAZAL & HOBSON: RARE SKIPPER 21
P. bulenta. These included surveys along the
Rappahannock, Mattaponi, and Pamunkey rivers.
Extensive surveys of marshes along the Rappahannock
River were also conducted in July and August of 2001
without success.
While conducting zoological surveys in 2001 for the
National Park Service at Colonial National Historical
Park — Jamestown Island, P. bulenta was observed by
Chazal and others at one small, fringe marsh over the
course of several weeks. The marsh is approximately
50 m long by 20 m wide and is approximately 0.8 mi
(1.25 km) north of Travis Cemetery on Jamestown
Island, in James City County, Virginia (new county
record). The area within which P. bulenta was observed
covers approximately 6.4 acres (2.6 ha). This is only
the second known Virginia population of this species
and is approximately 24 air km south of the previously
known site on the Chickahominy River.
Emergent vegetation in this area includes giant
cordgrass, arrow arum, narrow-leaved cattail (7ypha
angustifolia), and pickerelweed. Larger, surrounding
marshes contain giant cordgrass, arrow-arum, wild rice,
dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), halberd-leaf
tearthumb (Polygonum arifolium), Walter’s barnyard
grass (Echinochloa waliteri), bull-tongue arrowhead
(Sagittaria lancifolia), and other species. Several stems
of swamp milkweed were observed along the edge of
the marsh on the upland side.
On 19 July 2001, one P. bulenta was collected;
however, it was not identified until about one month
later and its precise capture location is uncertain. Based
on surveys in the area after this finding, and the highly
localized behavior of the species, the collection was
almost certainly made in the same fringe marsh as the
subsequent observations and collections. On 15 August,
8-9 individuals of P. bulenta were observed in the outer
portions of the marsh. The highest population count
occurred on 22 August when 139 individuals were
observed near the Colonial Parkway. A majority (106)
of those seen on this date were observed nectaring on
20-30 flower heads of swamp milkweed (Fig. 1). On
30 August, only ten P. bulenta were observed. It was
also noted that the swamp milkweed flower heads were
either spent, or appeared to have been browsed by
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Rare
skippers were last observed on 6 September when four
individuals were seen. None were seen on 13
September.
The rare skippers were observed nectaring mainly
on swamp milkweed and_ pickerelweed’ with
two individuals observed nectaring on rattlesnake
master (Eryngium aquaticum). Outside of Virginia,
other reported nectar sources of P. bulenta include
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), common
milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), dogbane (Apocynum
cannabinum), swamp rose mallow (Hibiscus palustris),
and seashore mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica) (Krizek
& Opler, 1986; Cromartie & Schweitzer, 1993). The
latter authors listed numerous additional, infrequently
visited plants.
Other lepidopterans observed in the same area of
Jamestown Island included broad-winged skipper,
sedge skipper (Euphyes dion), Delaware skipper
(Anatrytone logan), silver-spotted skipper (Epargyreus
clarus), and monarch.
Fig, 1.
swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata).
Adult rare skipper (Problema bulenta) on
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people assisted with fieldwork during the
surveys conducted at Colonial National Historical Park,
including Joe Weber, Gina Pisoni, Kathy Derge, and
Lisa Page Carter. Funding for the surveys was provided
by the United States Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, through cooperative agreement
number 4000-8-9027 number 2 with the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division
of Natural Heritage. The Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services in cooperation with
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided funding to
the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage for the
fieldwork conducted in 1999. Steve Roble, Amber
Foster, Dean Walton, and Phil Coulling provided field
assistance.
22 BANISTERIA
LITERATURE CITED
Covell, C. V., Jr., & G. B. Straley. 1973. Notes on
Virginia butterflies with two new state records. Journal
of the Lepidopterists’ Society 27: 144-154.
Cromartie, W. J., & D. F. Schweitzer. 1993. Biology of
the rare skipper (Hesperiidae), in southern New Jersey.
Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 47: 125-133.
Glassberg, J. 1999. Butterflies Through Binoculars —
The East: A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Eastern
North America. Oxford University Press, New York,
NY. 242 pp.
Krizek, G. O., & P. A. Opler. 1986 [1987].
Observations on Problema bulenta. Journal of Research
on the Lepidoptera 25: 146-148.
No. 19, 2002
Nicolay, S. S. 1979. Problema bulenta (Boisduval and
LeConte). Pp. 173-174 In D. W. Linzey (ed.).
Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of
Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
Opler, P. A. 1998. A Field Guide to Eastern
Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
486 pp.
Opler, P. A., & G. O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies East of
the Great Plains. The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, MD. 294 pp.
Pague, C. A. 1991. Rare skipper Problema bulenta
(Boisduval and LeConte). Pp. 238-240 Jn K.
Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia’s Endangered
Species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing
Company, Blacksburg, VA.
Banisteria, Number 19, 2002
© 2002 by the Virginia Natural History Society
First Virginia Records for Three Species of Centipeds
(Geophilomorpha: Schendylidae)
Richard L. Hoffman
Virginia Museum of Natural History
Martinsville, Virginia 24112
Luis A. Pereira
Museo de La Plata
RA 1900
La Plata, Argentina
The recent annotated list of Virginia centipeds
(Hoffman, 1995) admitted 56 species confirmed for the
state as well as 19 others considered as likely to be found
here. Yet, despite ongoing collecting efforts in the past
six years, disappointingly little augmentation of the
original total has taken place. We take this occasion to
put on record three species of the family Schendylidae
new to Virginia, two of them more or less anticipated, the
third so far out of its known range as to be of particular
biogeographic interest.
With these additions, Virginia is known to harbor no
fewer than six species of schendylids, the greatest number
recorded for any state, and hardly equalled by any area of
comparable size in the world. Yet it is entirely probable
that additional endemic species remain to be discovered
here.
SCHENDYLIDAE
The distribution of this family is curious. By far the
great majority of both genera and species occur
throughout the Neotropical, Indoaustralian, and
Afrotropical regions, but another contingent is distinctly
Holarctic and notably psychrophilus in terms of surface
activity. The group itself was not established until 1896,
when O. F. Cook dismembered the old Geophilidae into
nine clearly-defined families. At that time, Cook knew
only one endemic genus (Escaryus) and its two species in
eastern North America, in addition to a European species
introduced into New York state.
Subsequently the Nearctic fauna was shown in many
papers by R. V. Chamberlin to be large and diverse, with
its greatest development in southwestern United States.
The fauna of northeastern United States (two genera, four
species) was treated by Crabill (1953), who later (1961)
provided a catalog of the schendylids of North America,
including Mexico (11 genera, 40 species, nearly all named
by Chamberlin). Most recently, the present authors
published a revision of the genus Escaryus, recognizing
eight Nearctic species (Pereira & Hoffman, 1993). Since
our native schendylids are normally found only during the
colder months (or at high elevations in our latitude), they
are not adequately represented in collections, and
undoubtedly many major contributions to their knowledge
remain to be made. This is shown clearly by our
discovery in 1988 of two sympatric new species of
Escaryus in the Virginia Blue Ridge, and by the three
species of Schendylidae here added to the known fauna of
the state.
Schendyla nemorensis (C. L. Koch)
This species is common in western Europe, and like
so many other small soil animals has been introduced into
a hospitable North America where it is now widely
dispersed and abundant in urbanized areas of the northern
states. Crabill (1953) mentioned localities in Connecticut,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire,
New York, and Utah, and predicted eventual discovery in
many others. We now add Virginia, apparently the
southernmost established state of record:
Roanoke Co.: Salem, 1 February 2002, 2 Oo
(VMNH). A sample of soil taken beneath a white pine in
his backyard by Dr. Jorge Santiago-Blay and processed by
Berlese extraction at VMNH yielded these specimens.
The larger is 20 mm in length, with 39 pairs of legs; both
agree in every respect with the detailed description and
illustrations published by Brélemann & Ribaut (1912).
24 BANISTERIA
The species is easily recognized by the form of the
terminal legs of males (Fig. 1). Males of Escaryus
likewise have enlarged podomeres, but they are densely
setose and the terminal article is not so strongly reduced
and set off. S. nemorensis differs also in having only four
coxopleural pores instead of 12 or more, and in that the
terminal claw of the second maxillae is not pectinate.
Both conditions can be seen without dissection from a
specimen mounted in ethylene glycol or lactic acid.
Fig. 1. Schendyla nemorensis, posterior end of body in
ventral aspect, showing form of the last pair of legs with
the reduced 7" podomere, and position of the four
coxopleural pores beneath the last sternal plate, characters
which distinguish this species from other local
geophilomorphs. Specimen from Salem, Virginia.
Escaryus liber Cook & Collins
Originally described from New York state, this
species remained largely unknown until Crabill’s
treatment in 1953, when he added localities for Ohio,
Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The last two
places almost guaranteed discovery of E. liber in Virginia,
and this had even happened some years before the work
by Pereira & Hoffman (1993) appeared. Ironically, the
specimen was at VMNH but unknown to them, in a
backlog of unsorted samples.
Rockbridge-Bedford Cos.: Blue Ridge Parkway, 0.5
mi N Petite’s Gap, in pine-maple woods, 3 December
1988, W.A. Shear (VMNH 19 adult, 25 mm long, with
51 pairs of legs, both spermathecae contain mature
No. 19, 2002
spermatozoa).
The species has not been recovered despite several
attempts made at the specified site and higher on Apple
Orchard Mountain. It has been described and illustrated
in detail by Pereira & Hoffman (1993).
Escaryus ethopus Chamberlin
Heretofore this species has been recorded only from
Alaska and Yukon Territory, Canada (Pereira & Hoffman,
1993, Map 1). Although widely disjunct distributions
between the Appalachians and western North America
have long been known, they have been almost invariably
at the generic level. The present case involves a
separation of more than 2600 mi/4160 km and
displacement far to the south from the subarctic primary
area (Fig. 2). Fragmentation of a once continuous North
American range may be invoked as the only plausible
explanation; the existence of other small disjunct
populations may be reasonably assumed.
Fig. 2. Outline map of North America, showing primary
range of Escaryus ethopus in Canada and Alaska
(shaded), and location of site in the Virginia Blue Ridge
(arrow).
HOFFMAN & PEREIRA: CENTIPEDS 2
Rockbridge-Bedford Cos.: Blue Ridge Parkway, 0.5
mi N Petite’s Gap, in pine-maple woods, 3 December
1988, W. A. Shear (VMNH 19 adult, 40 mm long, with
49 pairs of legs, seminiferous tubules with mature
spermatozoa).
This specimen agrees with the detailed description of
E. ethopus (Pereira & Hoffman, 1993: 52-56) in every
respect except that the pretergum of the last pedal
segment is separated from the pleurites by sutures.
Whether this single difference is only an aberration or
reflects a constant difference in the Virginia population
cannot be ascertained until more material has been
examined. Regrettably, despite numerous attempts to
recollect this species at the specified locality and other
sites in the central Blue Ridge, no additional specimens
have been obtained. As with many minute soil animals,
capture is often a matter of mere serendipity, and
sampling efforts may miss a population by only a few
meters.
Escaryus urbicus (Meinert)
This species has been recorded (Pereira & Hoffman,
1993: 16) from western Virginia: Alleghany, Augusta,
Bland, Giles, and Nelson counties. It is now possible to
add an additional capture site: Floyd Co.: Buffalo
Mountain Natural Area Preserve, north slope pitfall site
at 3400 ft., December 2001-11 April 2002, (VMNH 1 GC,
ca. 34 mm long, with 41 pairs of legs). This specimen
agrees closely with the detailed description and
illustrations presented by Pereira & Hoffman (1993; Figs.
1-10), except that the labral teeth are much more distinct
and darkly pigmented than shown in their Fig. 8, which
may have been of an atypical condition. The appearance is
much more like that represented for E. cryptorobius
(Pereira & Hoffman, 1993; Fig. 55).
Although the new locality is only slightly further
south than that in Bland County, it establishes the species
less than 30 miles from North Carolina and the discovery
of E. urbicus in that state is virtually assured. Escaryus
cryptorobius has been taken syntopically at Buffalo
Mountain, although from Berlese extractions rather than
pitfalls.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We express our appreciation to Dr. Jorge Santiago-
Blay and Prof. William A. Shear for generously donating
material upon which this report is based to the Virginia
Museum of Natural History.
LITERATURE CITED
Brolemann, H. W., & H. Ribaut. 1912. Essai d’une
Monographie des Schendylina (Myriapodes, Géophilo-
morphes). Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d’Histoire
Naturelle, Mémoires, cinquiéme série 4: 53-183.
Cook, O. F. 1896. An arrangement of the Geophilidae, a
family of Chilopoda. Proceedings of the United States
National Museum 18: 63-75.
Cook, O. F., & G. N. Collins. 1891. Notes on North
American Myriapoda of the family Geophilidae, with
descriptions of three genera. Proceedings of the United
States National Museum 13: 383-396.
Crabill, R. E. 1953. The Schendylidae of northeastern
North America (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha). Journal of
the New York Entomological Society 61: 93-98.
Crabill, R. E. 1961. A catalogue of the Schendylinae
of North America including Mexico, with a generic key
and proposal of a new Simoporus (Chilopoda:
Geophilomorpha). Entomological News 72: 29-36, 67-80.
Hoffman, R. L. 1995. The centipeds (Chilopoda) of
Virginia: a first list. Banisteria 5: 20-32.
Pereira, L. A., & R. L. Hoffman. 1993. The American
species of Escaryus, a genus of Holarctic centipeds
(Geophilomorpha: Schendylidae). Jeffersoniana 3: 1-72.
26 BANISTERIA
No. 19, 2002
SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS
Banisteria, Number 19, 2002
© 2002 by the Virginia Natural History Society
SPRING DRAGONFLY (ODONATA) AND
BUTTERFLY (LEPIDOPTERA) FALLOUT AT THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE-TUNNEL.--Large
groups of migrating Odonata are rare, especially in
spring (Russell et al., 1998). On 27 May 2000, from
about 1530 h to 1630 h, I encountered a fallout, or mass
grounding, of dragonflies, butterflies, and other insects
on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-tunnel, at the mouth of
Chesapeake Bay. The “other” insects were mostly
beetles and were not studied. A thunderstorm was
rapidly approaching, that soon produced heavy rain,
causing me to leave after making observations on the
three northernmost of four total man-made islands. The
temperature was about 32° C and humidity was near
100%. Winds were moderate from the east and had
been strong, from the east, off the ocean, for the
previous two days.
I am a volunteer bird and butterfly researcher for
Coastal Virginia Wildlife Observatory and while the
Observatory has conducted regular butterfly surveys at
the tip of Virginia’s Eastern Shore since 1995,
dragonfly study has been very limited. The bridge-
tunnel is a well-known migrant bird trap at all seasons
(Kain & Brinkley, 1997) and I have crossed it regularly
throughout the year for more than 25 years and have not
witnessed a similar insect fallout there.
I am not a dragonfly expert, but I am familiar with
many species. I made sketches and notes of the
dragonflies that were perched on the building walls and
could be examined closely. I later made my
identifications using Dunkle (2000) and the dragonfly
website at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~dbarber/
odonatology.html. I counted more than 500 dragonflies
on the 10 m by 10 m brick south wall of the building on
the next to southernmost island. Many appeared to be
escaping the strong wind by resting on the walls, but
others were flying or were perched on vegetation out in
the open. I estimated a total of 4,500 dragonflies over a
distance of about 13 km along the bridge-tunnel.
Although I must have missed some species due to
limited study time, nine species of dragonflies were
identified. Estimates of the percentage of each species,
made mainly from the close observations of those
perched on the walls, are in Table 1. I was able to
confirm the presence of both males and females for
Anax junius, Pachydiplax longipennis, Gomphaeschna
furcillata, Erythemis simplicicollis, and Libellula
vibrans.
Table 1. Dragonflies recorded during fallout on 27 May
2000 at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-tunnel.
Estimated
Common Name Scientific Name % of Total
Common Green Darner Anax junius 25
Eastern Pondhawk Erythemis simplicicollis 25
Harlequin Darner Gomphaeschna furcillata 10
Blue Dasher Pachydiplax longipennis 10
Great Blue Skimmer Libellula vibrans 10
Swamp Darner Epiaeschna heros 10
Halloween Pennant Celithemis eponina 5
Eastern Amberwing Perithemis tenera 5
Saddlebags sp. Tramea sp. <]
I roughly estimated butterfly numbers at several
hundred. They were common species that I am familiar
with, however, because of the impending storm and my
interest in the dragonflies, time was not taken to
differentiate Clouded from Orange Sulphur nor
Question Mark from Comma nor American Lady from
Painted Lady. The list of butterflies identified with
estimates of the percentage of each species seen is
contained in Table 2.
Table 2. Butterflies recorded during fallout on 27 May
2000 at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-tunnel.
Estimated
Common Name Scientific Name % of Total
Clouded/Orange Colias philodice/ 25
Sulphur C. eurytheme
Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta 25
Common Buckeye Junonia coenia 25
American/Painted Vanessa virginiensis/ 10
Lady V. cardui
Comma/ Polygonia comma 10
Question Mark P. interrogationis
American Snout Libytheana carinenta 5
On 3 June 2000, I visited the bridge-tunnel again
and found dozens of dragonflies still present, though
many were sluggish and could be captured by hand. I
was able to measure and photograph several species.
The Internet site for the North American Dragonfly
Migration Project (http://members.bellatlantic.net/
~dbarber/migrant/mig.html) described, with moving
graphics, a “frontal boundary and radar visible
migration” along the East Coast on 3 June 2000.
SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 24
Possible reasons for mass migrations of dragonflies
in spring include dispersal from drought-affected areas,
sustained southerly winds, and population increases.
These movements may not be annual events and
probably vary greatly in magnitude (Soltesz et al.,
1995).
LITERATURE CITED
Dunkle, S. W. 2000. Dragonflies Through Binoculars:
a Field Guide to Dragonflies of North America. Oxford
University Press, New York. 266 pp.
Kain, T., & N. Brinkley. 1997. Chesapeake Bay
Bridge-tunnel islands. Pp. 39-43 Jn D. W. Johnston
(compiler). A Birder’s Guide to Virginia. American
Birding Association, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO.
Russell, R.W., M. L. May, K. L. Soltesz, & J. W.
Fitzpatrick. 1998. Massive swarm migrations of
dragonflies in eastern North America. American
Midland Naturalist 140: 325-342.
Soltesz, K., B. Barber, & G. Carpenter. 1995. A spring
dragonfly migration in the Northeast. Argia 7(3): 10-
14.
Brian Taber
Coastal Virginia Wildlife Observatory
P.O. Box 912
Eastville, Virginia 23347
Banisteria, Number 19, 2002
© 2002 by the Virginia Natural History Society
RECORDS FOR WINTER SCORPIONFLIES IN
VIRGINIA (MECOPTERA: BOREIDAE).--Although
the great majority of mecopterans are active as adults
during the warmer months of the year, there is a small
and hardy contingent, species of the family Boreidae,
which has become adapted to life during the cold winter
periods and may even be found walking actively on
snow. This seasonal preference has resulted in a group
of insects somewhat less well known than. their
thermophilus relatives, and even the details of their
geographic distribution remain to be worked out.
Knowledge of this family was summarized several
decades ago (Penny, 1977) in a useful and complete
monograph, which serves as a baseline upon which
local studies can be superimposed. Penny recognized
ten Nearctic species of the major genus Boreus, of
which only two occur in the eastern states, and provided
distributional maps which reflected the paucity of
museum material available to him at the time.
Although it is understandable that traditional hand-
capture methods have not been extensively employed,
the scarcity of Virginia records is _ surprising,
considering that pitfall trap lines have been operated
throughout the year at localities across the state
including White Top Mountain. The following is a
summary of known Virginia records based on literature
and material in the Virginia Museum of Natural History
(VMNH, identifications by G. W. Byers) and the
National Museum of Natural History (USNM,
identifications by O. S. Flint).
Boreus brumalis (Fitch). The main body of this
species’ range extends from Ontario and Maine west
through Michigan and Ohio and south to the Great
Smoky Mountains, Tennessee, with disjunct outlying
segments in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. There
appear to be no published localities for the relatively
well-collected states of Arkansas (Robison et al., 1997)
and Kentucky (Byers & Covell, 1981). Byers (1962)
published a record for Quantico, Prince William
County, Virginia. Penny (1977) plotted only two
Virginia records, including the foregoing and another in
Giles County, presumably at or near Mountain Lake.
New Virginia records are: Arlington’ Co.:
Arlington, 11 December 1960, A. B. Gurney (USNM
2). Augusta Co.: George Washington National Forest
(GWNBP), timber management compartment 460-5, ca.
5 mi W Stokesville, 18 May 1988, Barry D. Flamm
(VMNH 1), same site and collector, 22 December 1988
(VMNH 1). Shenandoah Mountain, 5 mi S Reddish
Knob on FS Rt. 85, 17 June 1988, Kurt A. Buhlmann
(VMNH 1); same site and collector, 19 November 1988
(VMNH 1). Fairfax Co.: Dead Run, on snow, 20
January 1957, A. B. Gurney (USNM 2); Falls Church,
on snow, 18 December 1957, A. B. Gurney (USNM 1);
River Bend Park, Great Falls, 2 January 1955, G. B.
Vogt (USNM 1). Loudoun Co.: Appalachian Trail near
Round Hill, 8 February 1970, O. S. Flint, Jr. (USNM
16). Page Co.: Mountain Run, base of Strickler Knob,
ca. 5 mi W Luray, 9 February 1975, O. S. Flint, Jr.
(USNM 6). York Co.: Yorktown Naval Weapons
Station, 4 April 1991, Kurt A. Buhlmann (VMNH 1).
Most of these records are consistent with the
known range of this boreal, psychrophilic insect. That
for York County is a little more southward and lowland
than might have been expected, but Prof. Byers advises
(in litt.) that he found the species in some numbers on
snow in Rock Creek Park, District of Columbia.
Presumably, B. brumalis occurs in much of Virginia,
but pitfall trapping is probably not the optimal
technique for collecting this species.
28 BANISTERIA
Boreus nivoriundus (Fitch). With a range centered
on northeastern North America, this species has been
documented as far south as the Great Smoky
Mountains, but not recorded for Kentucky (Byers &
Covell, 1981) or Virginia. VMNH material is from
Augusta Co.. ca. 5 mi W_ Stokesville, GWNF,
compartment 453-11, 12 December 1988, Barry D.
Flamm (VMNH 2); same site but compartment 453-1A,
12 December 1988, Barry D. Flamm (VMNH 2).
Nelson Co.: “The Priest”, 3900 ft., GWNF, ca. 4.5 mi
SE Montebello, 20 January-28 February 1992, VMNH
survey (VMNH 1).
It is not clear why the Augusta County site should
be favored by boreids. The substrate is upper Devonian
red shale, with a forest cover of oak, hickory, and pine.
Compartments 453-11 and 453-1A (B. nivoriundus) are
both “old growth” stands which were not logged in the
last century like the remainder of the area.
Compartment 460-5 (B. brumalis), adjacent to 453-11,
is currently invested in mature second growth forest,
but generalizations cannot be drawn from so few data.
The Virginia localities for B. nivoriundus require
modification of the maps in Webb et al. (1975) and
Penny (1977) to fill most of the central Appalachian
lacuna they indicate.
I am pleased to acknowledge the generous
assistance, in the form of identifications, locality
records, and manuscript review, provided by Professor
No. 19, 2002
George W. Byers and Dr. Oliver S. Flint, Jr.
LITERATURE CITED
Byers, G. W. 1962. Descriptions and distributional
records of American Mecoptera. II. Journal of the
Kansas Entomological Society 35: 299-307.
Byers, G. W., & C. V. Covell, Jr. 1981. An annotated
checklist of the scorpionflies (Mecoptera) of Kentucky.
Entomological News 92: 196-198.
Penny, N. D. 1977. A systematic study of the family
Boreidae (Mecoptera). The University of Kansas
Science Bulletin 41: 141-217.
Robison, H. W., G. W. Byers, & C. A. Carlton. 1997.
Annotated checklist of the Mecoptera (scorpionflies) of
Arkansas. Entomological News 108: 313-317.
Webb, D. W.,.N. D. Penny, & J.C. Marlin. 1975. The
Mecoptera, or scorpionflies, of Illinois. Bulletin of the
Illinois Natural History Survey 31: 251-316.
Richard L. Hoffman
Virginia Museum of Natural History
Martinsville, Virginia 24112
Fig. 1. Virginia localities for Boreus brumalis (@), B. nivoriundus ( &) and the site at which they are sympatric (* ).
The extent of the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province is indicated by the two solid lines trending northeast to
southwest.
MISCELLANEA 29
Miscellanea
Reports
1. President’s Report
On May 11-12, 2002 a BioBlitz was conducted at
Pocahontas State Park. Many of the members of your
Executive Committee would have liked to offer
financial support to this endeavor. However, given the
current status of our finances we could not justify an
expenditure of funds (more on this later). Nevertheless,
the Virginia BioBlitz was supported by the participation
of a number of VNHS members. Many of these were
representing their respective employers but they also
represented the contributions of the VNHS and its
membership. Endeavors such as this require more than
financial support and I am sure the organizers wish to
thank each of you for your time as do I.
Our 10" Annual Meeting was held at Hampton
University, Hampton, Virginia on May 23, 2002. Our
meeting was held with the Natural History and
Biodiversity Section of the Virginia Academy of
Science. This arrangement has greatly benefitted both
organizations and has produced a series of successful
meetings through the years. Thirteen oral presentations
were given along with three posters. Six student
presentations were in competition for the VAS William
S. Woolcott Best Student Paper Award.
This fall we will need to elect a new Councilor and
a President Elect (Vice President). Joella Killian’s
(Mary Washington College) term as Councilor expires
in December and Barbara Abraham (Hampton
University) will assume the office of President at the
same time. I will be forming a nominating committee
to come up with a slate of candidates. I also ask each of
you to consider submitting the names of members
willing to serve a term as a Councilor or President
Elect. First ask the individual if they are willing to
serve and then forward their name to me
(wwieland@mwc.edu) or any member of the Executive
Committee. There may also be a vote on changing the
Bylaws regarding terms of Councilors on the same
ballot. Currently there are three Councilors, each
serving a 4-year term. The terms of Councilors are
staggered to allow for an “institutional memory.”
These criteria allow for a Councilor election each year
with every fourth year having no election. Under this
system it is cumbersome to keep track of terms. The
Executive Committee is reviewing this and hopes to
have a solution soon.
We are half way through 2002 and with this issue
the Virginia Natural History Society is publishing issue
Number 19 of Banisteria. It has been an excellent
source of information on the natural history of Virginia.
Our current editors and the previous editor have done
an admirable job in producing a high quality
publication. Your governing board is, however,
concerned about the financial stability of the VNHS.
Subscriptions are down and our annual income from
this source pays for the publication with little left over.
Indeed, income from subscriptions/memberships is our
primary means for financing this publication. Given
the slow down in the economy we are concerned about
our reserves for unexpected expenses. We are working
to reduce costs while maintaining the high standard set
by past issues of Banisteria. In short, we need to
increase subscriptions to maintain Banisteria. A new
VNHS brochure was prepared by councilor Tom
McAvoy this spring. The front illustration features
scanned covers of two past issues of Banisteria and
should be more effective in our efforts to recruit new
library subscriptions. Copies can be obtained from
Anne Lund, Secretary-Treasurer.
In one form or another I have been involved in the
scientific community of Virginia ever since I gave my
first presentation before the Virginia Academy of
Science in 1972. I was absent from Virginia for a short
period while attending graduate school. During the past
30 odd years there has been a great proliferation of
organizations for the study of natural history within the
Commonwealth. Whether you joined one of these
because of your profession or your avocation you may
be finding yourself stretched thin. More specifically, if
you are like me, lately you have found your pocketbook
stretched thin. You can no longer justify a membership
in so many groups. Unlike the Federal Government, we
cannot have deficit spending (at least not for long) in
our personal budget. So, you have to make a decision.
A difficult decision, because all of these groups are
good organizations, but there are just too many. Which
memberships will you maintain and which must go?
Let me give you several reasons why you should
continue your Virginia Natural History Society
membership. First, you get a network of like-minded
people to share your interests. True, you could develop
your own network but through the Society you can
quickly come into contact with individuals it might take
a lifetime to meet. Second, we hold an Annual Meeting
at which members have the opportunity to
communicate their work and also hear what others have
found. Abstracts from these presentations are published
in the Virginia Journal of Science. Further, student
presenters at this meeting may compete for a $100 prize
for best paper. Third, you receive a subscription to
Banisteria.
30 BANISTERIA
Whether your area of interest is botany or zoology,
ornithology or herpetology, ferns or thistles, or, as most
of us, your interests are much broader when it comes to
natural history, membership in the VNHS provides
many benefits. The VNHS, through Banisteria,
provides a_ significant outlet for natural history
information on the biota of Virginia. In short, by
maintaining a membership in the VNHS you can
maintain a conduit to a wide and rich variety of
Virginia naturalists. Renew your membership and tell a
fellow naturalist!
Respectfully submitted,
Werner Wieland, President
2. Secretary-Treasurer’s Report
We have 116 memberships, 14 of which are
institutions or libraries. These are both new and
renewed memberships for 2002. This is not as high as
we would like for this new year, but this is a good total
in some ways considering that we have sent no
additional reminders so far this year. We will be
reminding members to renew their membership with
the society by sending them a notice about renewal and
a return envelope in our mailing of Banisteria (#19),
this issue, the first for year 2002. (At the end of 2001,
we had 158 members.)
As always, we encourage our active members to
recruit members for the Society. A membership form is
included with this mailing. Pass it on to a friend or
colleague interested in the natural history of our state.
If you were a member last year, and have not renewed
your membership, you are receiving this journal with a
reminder to submit your membership payment.
Our treasury presently holds $5,281 (as of June 11,
2002). The expenses for the publication and mailing of
this issue of Banisteria (#19) will be subtracted from
this amount. We are always grateful for contributions
from Society members above the regular membership
amounts, and we have received thirteen such donations
during the first half of the year totaling $175.
An important item to mention in our treasury report
is that the Society provided a graduate fellowship of
$500 for a young biologist to work at the Virginia
Museum of Natural History in Martinsville, Virginia.
We continue to be grateful to Hampden-Sydney
College for support with the paperwork concerning our
treasury. The secretary at Gilmer Hall, Hampden-
Sydney College, Beckie Smith, has done a great job of
keeping our records of membership, and she has
prepared the address labels for all mailings. We thank
No. 19, 2002
her for her dedication to these tasks, and we thank the
College for supplying this support to the Society.
Please submit all enquiries about membership in the
Society or about past issues of Banisteria to: Dr. Anne
Lund, Virginia Natural History Society, Box 62,
Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Lund, Secretary/Treasurer
3. Editors’ Report
Personal Commentary I
I am glad to see that my Personal Commentary in
Banisteria 18 generated some responses. I want to say
at the outset here that I apologize to anyone who took
offense. I grew increasingly tired of saying the same
old thing in each issue - "We need more manuscripts."
This is a common problem with small journals,
although the breadth of ours should allow for authors of
many disciplines to make plenty of contributions. My
commentary was written to analyze why so few
manuscripts were submitted and to see if I could
wrench out a few from people who had just not taken
the time to finish one.
In the context of the commentary, laziness was
equated with how one arranges his or her priorities. I
have decided a long time ago to put publications high
on my list of priorities. Others may value teaching or
other professional pursuits somewhat more. I certainly
don't believe anyone out there is lazy, as we are all
working harder than ever. Maybe I cannot expect
others to value publishing one's natural history
information or data as much as I do. I simply remain
concerned that we are not seeing the number of
submissions that will ensure that Banisteria will thrive.
I truly believe in the concept of teamwork. Effective
team players are leaders when they need to be and
followers when they need to be. Team players support
the goal of the team. The VNHS team has a primary
goal of publishing Banisteria. This goal is achieved
only if the team players contribute to it. Thus, the
success of the team, in this case the success of
Banisteria, is realized by those members who
contribute manuscripts. I wish that all of you were
contributing members of this team. Some members
contribute in other important ways, such as serving as
society officers. However important this service is, the
success of our journal is_ still dependent on
contributions from the team.
MISCELLANEA 31
So, again, I apologize to any reader that had
problems with my previous commentary. The rest of
you saw though the ruse for what it was, a tactic to
generate more manuscripts for Banisteria and,
admittedly, for venting some frustration over this issue.
Joe Mitchell
The Spring 2002 issue of Banisteria (Number 19)
will be smaller than many previous issues. This is due
entirely to the fact that manuscript submissions have
been slow in coming. We have several in the review
process that should make the next issue full size.
Remember to send _ vertebrate and biography
manuscripts to Joe Mitchell and those on invertebrates
and plants to Steve Roble.
Joe Mitchell and Steve Roble, Co-editors
4. Tenth Annual Meeting of the Virginia Natural
History Society
The 10“ annual meeting of the VNHS was held on 23
May 2002 at Hampton University, Hampton, VA. The
titles of papers presented at this meeting are listed
below:
Microhabitat differences between the ants Monomorium
minimum and M. viride (Formicidae: Myrmicinae) in a
longleaf pine forest. H. C. Revis and D. A. Waller.
A demographic analysis of the snail Leptoxis carinata
in an Appomattox River tributary: movement patterns
vary as a function of habitat type. L. M. Brantley, T. R.
Edwards, and T. W. Stewart.
Colony distribution of the fungus-growing ant
Trachymyrmex septentrionalis related to _ light
availability in a longleaf pine habitat. J. P. Howell and
D. A. Waller.
Den tree and habitat characteristics of the northern
flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) in two different
aged stands in the Mt. Rogers NRA. M. Hackett and
J. Pagels.
Trends through time: 57 years of spring arrival dates
of Neotropical migrant birds in central Virginia.
P. Bedell.
Assessment of biological integrity in an agriculturally
impacted Virginia mountain stream. J. H. Roberts, T. J.
Newcomb, and M. J. Pinder.
Ant catch related to pitfall trap type in a longleaf pine
habitat. D. A. Waller.
Life history aspects of the creeper, Strophitus
undulatus, and green floater, Lasmigona_ subviridis
(Bivalvia: Unionidae). R. A. Mair, J. W. Jones, and
R. J. Neves.
Using zebrafish
pollutants in sediments of Virginia waters.
Northington and T. W. Stewart.
survivorship to monitor organic
R. M.
Effect of prescribed burns on insect diversity in a
longleaf pine habitat. C. F. Abadam and D. A. Waller.
Subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae)
response to essential oils. L. K. Baron and D. A.
Waller.
Distribution of the endangered Roanoke logperch,
Percina rex, and species of concern Roanoke bass,
Ambloplites cavifrons, within the Smith River drainage.
T. Smith.
Anuran oviposition site selection: how behavior
influences community structure. J. F. Rieger, C. A.
Binckley, and W. J. Resetarits, Jr.
The following posters also were presented at the
meeting:
An unusual coat color pattern in a short-tailed shrew,
Blarina brevicauda. G. B. Bumann and P. F. Scanlon.
Habitat use and exploitation of the striped bass and
hybrid striped bass in Claytor Lake, Virginia:
preliminary findings. J. M. Kilpatrick and J. J. Ney.
Phylogeography of raccoons (Procyon lotor) on the
Virginia barrier islands: a nested clade analysis of
mitochondrial DNA haplotypes. N. D. Moncrief, R. A.
Van Den Bussche, and R. D. Dueser.
Announcements
1. Flora of Virginia Project
For more than half a century, Virginia botanists
have attempted to develop a Flora of Virginia.
Through a coalition of public, academic, and private
cooperators, this elusive dream may soon become
reality. In 2001, the non-profit organization, The
Foundation of the Flora of Virginia Project, Inc. was
32, BANISTERIA
founded with the ambitious goal of completing an
illustrated manual with accompanying illustrated
website by the year 2007.
Chris Ludwig, Chief Biologist of the Virginia
Division of Natural Heritage, heads the Foundation as
Executive Director and Board President. Other Board
members include Dr. Donna Ware, former curator of
the College of William and Mary herbarium and a
coauthor of the Atlas of the Virginia Flora; Michael
Lipford, Vice President and Virginia Executive
Director of The Nature Conservancy; Nicky Staunton,
President of the Virginia Native Plant Society; Dr. Chip
Morgan, representative of the Wintergreen Nature
Foundation; Marion Lobstein, Vice President of the
Virginia Academy of Science; Tom Smith, director of
the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage, and Mike
Garson, the Foundation’s attorney. Dr. Rex Baird, chair
of the Virginia Academy of Science Flora Committee,
is Treasurer.
The Flora of Virginia will be written by Alan
Weakley, curator of the University of North Carolina
Herbarium and Chris Ludwig, who was Botanist with
Virginia Natural Heritage. Other contributors and
authors will be involved as well. The authors are co-
chairs of a 40-member technical advisory board that
includes many of Virginia’s finest botanists. The
advisory board will assist in key decisions on content
and format and provide crucial technical assistance to
the Project such as field testing keys and descriptions,
providing materials for illustrators, and _ possibly
providing portions of the manual and website’s text.
This effort requires solid financial backing. Joslin
Gallatin, past-president and fundraiser for the
Foundation of the State Arboretum, is the Project’s
fundraiser. The Project has also been bolstered by a
sizable donation from the Virginia Division of Natural
Heritage. The Project has initiated other fundraising
efforts through major grant applications and requests
from private individuals. To learn more about the Flora
of Virginia Project, visit the project website at
www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/vaflora.htm.
Instructions for Contributors
Banisteria accepts manuscripts that contribute to the
public and scientific knowledge of the natural history of
Virginia. This publication is intended to be an outlet for
the kind of information that is useful but would not be
accepted in the mainstream journals. Information found
in field notebooks and files that never made it into
scientific journals is especially important. Manuscripts
derived from natural history observations, small-scale
No. 19, 2002
field projects, distribution surveys and reviews, species
inventories, reports for contracted environmental
projects, and unpublished theses are especially desired.
The focus of Banisteria is classical and_ therefore
slanted toward organismal biology. Reviews of books
relevant to Virginia’s natural history and biographies of
naturalists influential in this field are also welcomed by
the editors. The journal also is suited for papers on the
history of natural history as it pertains to Virginia.
To qualify for publication in Banisteria, the
manuscript must pertain in some way to the flora,
fauna, geology, geography or Native Americans of the
Commonwealth. Papers focusing largely on projects
conducted outside of the state will be considered only if
there is a strong connection to Virginia. Papers may be
full length or shorter contributions, and we are always
looking for book reviews. Authors are not required to
be members of the Virginia Natural History Society to
submit manuscripts, although membership in VNHS is
strongly encouraged. There are no page charges for
members. The editors will be happy to assist authors in
their preparation of manuscripts. We would rather help
get natural history information published for others to
use than have it remain on the shelf or in someone's
desk.
Manuscripts on vertebrates, history, biography, and
material for the Miscellanea section (book reviews,
announcements, news of members, obituaries, etc.)
should be sent to Joe Mitchell. Manuscripts on plants
and invertebrates should be sent to Steve Roble. Papers
on other topics can be submitted to either editor.
Mitchell and Roble will serve as editors for each other's
papers and an associate editor will be asked to serve as
editor for those papers written jointly by the co-editors.
Manuscripts should be sent in duplicate to the
appropriate co-editor (see previous paragraph), who
will in turn seek one or two reviews. Authors should
retain both the original typescript and figures until final
acceptance for publication. Photocopies are adequate
for review purposes.
Manuscripts must be written on one side of standard
size paper (21.5 x 28 cm) using double spacing
throughout. Words should not be hyphenated.
Manuscripts should be arranged in the following order:
title, author’s name, author’s address, text,
acknowledgments, literature cited, tables, figure
legends, figures. Long manuscripts should have
standard sections, e.g., Materials and Methods, Results,
and Discussion, although some papers may not be
amenable to such division, and short manuscripts (<4-6
pages) need not have these sections. All pages should
be numbered, including tables. The title should be
concise but informative. It and the author’s name and
MISCELLANEA 33
address should be centered at the top of the first page.
The text should begin on the first page beneath the
author’s address. Use good judgment on arrangement of
sections when other than the standard approach is
necessary. Use italics or underlines for species’
scientific names.
References: Use the following as a guide. Do not
abbreviate journal names.
Journal article with I author:
Scott, D. 1986. Notes on the eastern hognose snake,
Heterodon platyrhinos Latreille (Squamata:
Colubridae), in a Virginia barrier island. Brimleyana
12: 51-55.
Journal article with 2 authors:
Tilley, S. C., & D. W. Tinkle. 1968. A reinterpretation
of the reproductive cycle and demography of the
salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus. Copeia 1968:
299-303.
Journal article with 3+ authors:
Funderburg, J. B., P. Hertz, & W. M. Kerfoot. 1974. A
range extension for the carpenter frog, Rana virgatipes
Cope, in the Chesapeake Bay region. Bulletin of the
Maryland Herpetological Society 10: 77-79.
Book:
Harris, L. D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 211 pp.
Chapter in a book:
Gentry, A. H. 1986. Endemism in tropical versus
temperate plant communities. Pp. 153-181 Jn M. Soule
(ed.), Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,
Sunderland, MA.
Report:
The Nature Conservancy. 1975. The preservation of
natural diversity: A survey and recommendations.
Report to the U.S. Department of Interior, Washington,
DC. 189 pp. (include report series and number if
present).
Thesis:
Riddick, M. B. 1973. Freshwater mussels of the
Pamunkey River system, Virginia. Master’s Thesis,
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
105 pp.
Tables: Each table should be typed on a separate sheet
of paper, preferably using 10 point font. A legend for
each table should follow the number and must be on the
same page as the table. Ruled, horizontal lines should
be avoided except at the top and bottom of the table.
Remember that each table must fit within a space of
6.5 x 8.5 inches, and that reduction may cause loss of
detail.
Figures: Black and white line drawings are acceptable
for publication. They should be no more than twice the
size of final publication size, and if several are
assembled as a plate, keep the ratio of height to width
consistent with the rectangular shape of the page.
The back of each figure should be labeled with the
author’s name.
Photographs: Banisteria will accept high contrast
black and white photographs. Submit at least 5 x 7 inch
(12.5 x 17.5 cm) photos and mount them if possible.
Remember that reduction to fit column or page width
will cause loss of detail.
Abbreviations: The following common abbreviations
are accepted in Banisteria: n (sample size), no.
(number), SVL (snout-vent length; define on first
usage), DBH (diameter at breast height), yr (years), mo
(months), wk (weeks), h (hours), min (minutes),
s (seconds), P (probability), df (degrees of freedom),
SD and SE (standard deviation and standard error),
ns (not significant), | (liter), g (gram), mm (millimeter),
m (meter), km (kilometer), and C (degrees Celsius).
Do not abbreviate “male” and “female”, or dates, or
undefined terms.
Electronic transfer of manuscripts: After a
manuscript has been accepted for publication, one paper
copy and an electronic copy on a 3.5 inch diskette
should be sent to S. M. Roble. If possible, use IBM-
compatible systems with Microsoft Word or Word
Perfect. Please do not justify right-hand margins, and
do not attempt to produce “camera-ready copy.”
Reprints: Reprints are not provided. However, authors
will be sent one printed copy of their formatted article
to allow them or their institutions to prepare
photocopies or electronic files for personal use or
exchange purposes.
Page charges: Page charges are waived for
manuscripts written or coauthored by members of the
Virginia Natural History Society, although members
with grant funds are encouraged to contribute toward
printing costs. Nonmember authors will be accessed
page charges at a rate of $10 per printed page.
ha eA : Mes i :
_ ee ) oA wh
; vie Se ones
a A? ZI -
F , Ss
comme
a
J. i haves
fy vfeora
amyole COLLIE NEL.
Mut
rye
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11